Dear all, Daria and Siegfried’s description of actual museum practice is absolutely correct.
That being said, to my reading of the scope note, the intention of the proposed Purchase class is as a specific sub class extension to allow the modelling of acquisitions with this particular monetary-exchange character. All other types of acquisition, I assume, would continue to be modelled using the E8 Acquisition construct (no change and no commitment to notion that monetary exchange entailed). The scope note of the proposed class seems to specifically pick out that this is only one very limited type of action within a range of exchange relations which are not thereby modelled. The class would, however, to my opinion, allow for the pragmatic documentation of something which is not an uncommon event in actual museum practice, allowing better granularity of representation with regards to what is no doubt a highly pragmatically important subject (i.e.: money). I believe if this is the correct reading of the proposed class, it should cause no theoretical problem to the existing modelling using E8 Acquisition. Sincerely, George > On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:41 AM, Дарья Юрьевна Гук <[email protected]> wrote: > > In museum practice always the way of acquisition (gift, purshase, excavatioh > of an expedition...) is mentioned in contract and also, later in computer > systems, because these data are collected by Russian Ministery of Culture for > annual statistic report. > > > With kind regards, > Daria Hookk > > Senior Researcher of > the dept. of archaeology of > Eastern Europe and Siberia of > the State Hermitage Museum, > ADIT board > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
