Dear Simon,
This is an interesting discussion. Preserving things others have
collected has been described as
"SECONDARY COLLECTOR CONTEXT" and is well distinguished in archival
practice to my knowledge.
See also:
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/45860/EDM-DCC_Whitepaper_Final20131009.pdf?sequence=3
The case had been discussed when we defined E78. The "collection in the
collection" can either be
seen as one object in a collection, or, if incompletely acquired , the
secondary collection plan can be to acquire the missing parts to the
original collection, or, to continue the primary collector's plan. In
any case, the original collector was a curator to the collection.
All the best,
Martin
On 29/11/2014 11:57 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:
The definition of Collection possibly overly restrictive, even from an
archival point of view.
An collection of records will probably have been assembled by a
different agent to the curator; materials may be discarded as "not
archival", but if the fonds gets respect, the curator is not free to
do much assembling.
It is possible to finesse this by a sufficiently broad reading of
"plan", but it seems as if the roles of assembling curating/preserving
are intrinsically linked in the CRM (I ought to take a look at the old
EAD mapping) .
Simon
On Nov 29, 2014 3:32 PM, "Stephen Stead" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Martin
The problem probably lies in the word “Collection”! Everyone reads
that and thinks that the defining characteristic is the act of
collecting rather than the true differentiator which is the curation.
Perhaps changing the name to “E78 Curated Set” would solve the
problem. Nobody would know what it meant and so would read the
scope note!!!!
TTFN
SdS
Stephen Stead
Tel +44 20 8668 3075 <tel:%2B44%2020%208668%203075>
Mob +44 7802 755 013 <tel:%2B44%207802%20755%20013>
E-mail [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
*From:*Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *martin
*Sent:* 29 November 2014 19:07
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] A hoard as crm:E78_Collection ?
Continuing:
I don't know, why E78 Collection attracts so much attention. The
scope note of
E19 Physical Object says:
"The class also includes all aggregates of objects made for
functional purposes of whatever kind, independent of physical
coherence, such as a set of chessmen. Typically, instances of E19
Physical Object can be moved (if not too heavy)."
The CRM is not a terminological system to classify things. It is
made to provide relevant properties. We should only use a more
specific class, if we expect the respective additional properties
to be relevant for
querying. To say that an E19 "has type: Hoard" should be enough.
Only if we want to specify a curator and an E87 Curation Activity
with a curation plan, using E78 Collection would be adequate. The
less classes we use, the more effective the queries.
Best,
Martin
On 29/11/2014 2:45 μμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
In the case a curator in a museum buries his collection, a hoard may be
considered as as a collection. The collection class is intended for museum
collections, see the examples in the scope note.
C-E
-----Original Message-----
From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Dan Matei
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 1:30 PM
To:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [Crm-sig] A hoard as crm:E78_Collection ?
Friends
I have to say that a particular coin is a member of a particular
hoard. I googled
to see how others are dealing with that, but...
I'm tempted to:
<coin> <crm:P46i_forms_part_of> <hoard>
<hoard> <rdf:type> <crm:E78_Collection>
abusing a bit the E78 scope note:
"This class comprises aggregations of instances of E18 Physical
Thing that are
assembled and maintained (“curated” and “preserved,” in museological
terminology) by one or more instances of E39 Actor over time for a
specific
purpose and audience, and according to a particular collection
development
plan."
The "... according to a particular collection development plan."
troubles me.
Can we say that the guy burying a hoard had a "collection development
plan" ?
There is a better practice for modelling that ?
Dan
PS. Not to mention that I would like to associate the discovery
event with the
hoard, not with the coin.
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
