I am not entirely convinced that this statement is true. The intension of the coins creator is probably not to carry the immaterial object about, but to perform the function of enabling trade. The immaterial object is a mechanism for conveying authenticity. I agree that some coins carry immaterial objects and that these can presumably be part of a Work and Expression family. A commemorative medal would be a contender for being an information carrier as it is designed to carry the commemorative inscription but not so sure about coins and I would definitely say that tokens (with no design) would fall outside the scope of information carrier. If we want to say that coins are E84 Information Carriers then we may need to revise the scope note.
Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail [email protected] LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads -----Original Message----- From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christian-Emil Smith Ore Sent: 20 November 2014 17:02 To: Maria Theodoridou; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Coins 2 CRM (again) My view is that a coin is an information carrier and indeed is of the category of objects found and stored in a library C-E >-----Original Message----- >From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Maria >Theodoridou >Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 4:34 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Coins 2 CRM (again) > >Dear Dan, > >Indeed we have considered your thoughts and we have defined as >extensions for the coins and later for the CRM: > > > E12 Production. PC1 produced things of type: E55 Type > E22 Man-Made Object. PC2 is example of: E55 Type > > >Both PC1 and PC2 are subproperties of P2 has type > >The above are depicted in slide 23 in my presentation where I describe >how we modeled the categorical production. > >We believe that PC1 and PC2 are a generalization of R26 produced things >of type and R7 is example of of FRBR. >FRBR is not suitable for our coin modeling since it refers to >bibliographic information, as Christian-Emil pointed out. > >It is open for discussion if there is a need for generalizing F32 >Manifestation Product Type > >This is a topic for future discussion in CRM-SIG. > >Best regards, >Maria > > >On 19/11/2014 3:02 μμ, Dan Matei wrote: > > > Dear Maria > > > > Thanks you. I've read your (very useful) London presentation: > > > > http://www.slideshare.net/MariaTheodoridou/london-meetup2014- >mappingchi2cidoccrm ><http://www.slideshare.net/MariaTheodoridou/london-meetup2014- >mappingchi2cidoccrm> > > > > and I plan to take advantage of the mapping: >http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/3M <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/3M> > > > > But I'm tempted to treat the coins as exemplars of an "issue", i.e. > > > > <F5_Item> <crm:R7_is_example_of> ><crm:F3_Manifestation_Product_Type> > > > > IMHO, a thing like: > > > > http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.1(2).cl.31 ><http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.1%282%29.cl.31> > > > > is a F3, mutatis mutandis. > > > > When you did your mapping did you considered something like this ? >And which were the arguments against ? > > > > Best, > > > > Dan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >- >Maria Theodoridou >R & D Engineer > >Information Systems Laboratory & Centre for Cultural Informatics >Institute of Computer Science Foundation of Research and Technology - >Hellas (FORTH) Science and Technology Park of Crete Vassilika Vouton, >P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 >10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece > >Tel.: +30-2810-391731 Fax: +30-2810-391638 E-mail: >[email protected] >URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >- _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
