OK, here are a few discussion issues I would like to propose: 1. Scope Notes for Properties I think we need to provide scope notes for properties, to make their meaning more explicit. The need for property scope notes has also been voiced by the ABC/Harmony folks.
2. Collection class I've always been unhappy about the absence of a Collection class in the CRM, but couldn't think of a good response to Martin's question about what it's unique properties should be. Well, Martin himself came up with a candidate property for the Collection class, "Curated by", so I'm very happy to propose that we now add this class. My initial inclination would be to make it a subclass of E24 Physical Man Made Stuff, since I think we should limit it's scope to the kinds of physical collections that museums, libraries and archives deal with (i.e. explicitly and deliberately exclude collections of conceptual objects such as ideas, dreams etc.), but it should probably include electronic objects. 3. Modeling States At the DELOS harmonisation meeting with ABC/Harmony in Darmstadt recently, the notion of "states" came up, and it became very clear that this central aspect of the ABC/Harmony model was not really addressed by the CRM at all. For example, how would we model an assertion that an object O was at a location X at time T? The CRM can model a change of location event, but this is not exactly the same. Do we need to be able to model states in the CRM? I don't know, but it would make harmonisation with the ABC model a lot easier, so it's certainly worth adding to the list of issues. 4. Causality Another issue that has come up before at least once in the CRM SIG (I believe Steve brought it up) is the modeling of causality -- to explicitly say that event E1 had some kind of causal role in the occurrence of event E2. I think that the CRM deliberately avoids this at present, favouring a more neutral and objective modeling paradigm. However, there are some causal relationships that are sufficiently unarguable that we may want to explicitly identify them: I propose that we could do this using the Property Scope Notes. For example, the scope notes for the property "destroyed" could identify it as being a causal relationship. See you in Paris next month, Cheers, T. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Gill <> [email protected] Research Libraries Group <> http://www.rlg.org/ 1200 Villa Street, Mountain View, CA 94041 USA Voice: +1 (650) 691-2304 <> Fax: +1 (650) 964-1461 martin <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] 17/09/2001 07:12 AM To: [email protected] cc: Subject: [crm-sig] 2 new issues I just placed two new issues on the discussion list: location of physical features motivation of man-made objects as issues nr 40 and 41. Please do not hesitate to formulate issues for the next meeting, even if you are not sure if the subject is already covered.
