Dear all The quote from the CRM introduction "More specifically, it defines and is restricted to the underlying semantics of database schemata and document structures used in cultural heritage and museum documentation in terms of a formal ontology"
Christian-Emil's ontologist is interested in doing an ontological analysis of the way museum documentation is done. It is claimed on the CRM web pages and in numerous papers and presentations that CRM is only based on observed evidence in real documentation practice. Thus the model is the quintessence of the actual practice and not an expression of how the members of the CRM-SIG think best practice should be. In this ideal understanding of our work, the model is the result of debriefing documentalists and analyzing their documentation systems. It is not in the scope of CRM to decide what is "heritage", what is junk, what is rubbish or what is worth keeping in a museum. (In 1975 in the Museum of the Revolution in Moscow the pen Leonid Brezhnev used to fill in Lenin's new KPSS membership card was on display in the Ciity Museum in Oslo , complete tableaus of kitchens from the period1900-1980 is at display.) . A newly published anthology by the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research has the fascinating title "How to make cultural heritage". The discussion of what is heritage and what is not is interesting but outside the scope of CRM. Intangible cultural heritage: The UNESCO definition is a political compromise and is good or a least ok. To document such cultural activates is an old and well established scholarly activity. The documentation of intangible cultural heritage (as done by scholars) is indeed tangible. The documentation is a snapshot at a given point in time. For example, the fairytales published by the Grimm brothers (except for arguably being heavily edited by them) is frozen oral tradition. Oral tradition especially when not in bound form (verse) is changing continuously. So CRM (and FRBRoo) can model the documentation of intangible cultural heritage, not the intangible cultural heritage itself (whatever that may be). Levels of abstraction: We can talk or write about physical things (stones for example). We cannot store the stone in a computer (we can of course, but it may destroy the computer). We can only store information about a stone in a computer. In that respect all information in a "knowledge" base when accessed by a human will be a mental construction. The stone with scratches/inscription and empirical data. When it was accepted that there were only scratches on the stone and not inscriptions, in an ideal world the stone still must be kept to make the results reproducible. On the other hand archaeology for example, is not a science in the sense that you cannot redo an excavation. So the physical features observed under an excavation cease to be physical and become conceptual objects since they are only descripted in texts and images? Does a person become a conceptual model after death of the person? Best Chr-Emil >-----Original Message----- >From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of martin >Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 7:23 PM >To: Franco Niccolucci >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage > >Dear Franco, > >Thank you for the great examples! I think we could elaborate further on that >to illustrate the principles of the CRM. A good and comprehensive answer >requires a more extensive text we could work on together. This is at the >heart of the philosophical-epistemological questions we have to formulate >out and publish in order the CRM to have a future beyond the current form. > >I completely agree with what you describe, and that this in in the scope of >the CRM. I have the impression, that I see the role of the CRM a bit >differently, and basically less ambitious. Important aspects to clarify are the >role of a knowledge base, the ontology, the reality, the sense of truth in the >knowledge base, and which part of cultural-historical documentation should >at all be covered by formal ontologies, and which could at all be covered, and >how that part relates to other forms of documentation. > >Let me try some preliminary remarks, more will better be discussed in the >meeting, and hopefully end in a more comprehensive report. > >On 21/2/2016 5:49 πμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote: > > > Dear Martin & Christian-Emile > > > Il giorno 20 feb 2016, alle ore 18:49, martin ><[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> ha scritto: > > Dear Franco, > > This rises two important methodological questions (also >supporting Christian-Emils response) : > > On 19/2/2016 3:50 μμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote: > > The correct definition mentioned by Christian-Emile >refers to what I would call “stand-alone” intangible heritage. > > But, there is always an intangible component in >tangible heritage, for example what turns a stone into heritage. > > In the CRM, as a principle, we reject this inversion of agency >or causality, which is common in the scholarly discourse: The stone does >nothing, it does not change. Therefore it cannot turn into heritage. > > > I never said that. I said (it is written above): “what turns a stone > into >heritage”. The stone is the grammatical object, i.e. the entity that is acted >upon by the subject (here “what”). If you prefer, the same sentence may be >stated: “a stone is turned into heritage by its intangible heritage component”. > >Analyzing this use of "heritage", we should answer the questions: what is its >substance, identity condition, how does it come into being, end to be, and >what is its parts. The existence conditions tell me, that a community initiates >it, and ends it. The stone is not affected, so it is a state of a relationship >between the community and the stone, maintained by the community. In >your examples below, you give evidence that begin and end of this state is >marked by causal events of human activity. Would you agree on that? > >I had objections against the verb "turned", sorry for misunderstanding the >agency! "Turning" something I'd understand anyway as a change of the thing >turned, but we agree that this is not the case. Modelling this state as a >"component" of the stone, which has no influence on this state, is against >knowledge representation principles. It is in much better right a component >of the community, because the community is causal to it, but the RDF/OWL >formalism does not have components at all, only relationships, which >relieves us from the context-dependent decision where to attach the thing >to. It's between the stone and the community, but not the stone's. That was >my argument. I do not describe a different world than you do, I just formalize >it differently, always based on the same principles. There should not be >anything arbitrary or subjective in the process, once we accept the principles. >This gives the CRM its power. Now, if applying these principles you or >anybody else comes to a different result, we discuss until we either agree >which is the right application of the principles, or detect more than one >concept. Then we model both concepts, if both are regarded relevant for the >function of the CRM (information integration). > >Another question is, do I miss something doing this analysis? Do I result in a >loss of meaning versus the scholarly statement? Most probably. But could I >do better so that a machine will be able to process these data? > >Therefore in the CRM introduction: >"More specifically, it defines and is restricted to the underlying semantics of >database schemata and document structures used in cultural heritage and >museum documentation in terms of a formal ontology. It does not define any >of the terminology appearing typically as data in the respective data >structures; however it foresees the characteristic relationships for its use. >It >does not aim at proposing what cultural institutions should document. >Rather it explains the logic of what they actually currently document, and >thereby enables semantic interoperability... >... The CRM is however not thought to be a means to replace scholarly text, >rich in meaning, by logical forms, but only a means to identify related data. " > > > > > >This self-restriction is currently an admission to the shortcomings of >machines and formal logic for handling human knowledge, be it scientific or >scholarly. > > > Only people can start regarding it as heritage. People >regarding it as heritage will be supported by evidence about how people >treat the stone or refer to the stone. When the stone becomes (passively) >heritage, there must be human activities which are the cause, including >human products such as texts, paintings etc. > > > A painting (for example representing rites performed on that stone) >cannot do anything, it is a painting. Instead, it is somebody’s interpretation >of the painting and identification of the two stones, the material one and the >depicted one (sort of mental de-referencing), that identifies, or perhaps >defines, the intangible component of the material stone. Even a quotation in >an ancient text “Franco’s stone was sacred to the religion of the Francos” >does not suffice, as again you must identify the two stones, the one quoted >and the one you have in your hand. > >Sure, obviously. I'd however acknowledge the different substance: The stone >in my hand is material, the one in my head a mental image. >As a mental image, it is a conceptual object, a stone-image, not a stone. The >quotation is a propositional object with material evidence - the carrier on >which I find it. Question: When I model the claim" "An Actor XXX wrote >around XXX BC ("ancient text") : “Franco’s stone was sacred to the religion of >the Francos”, do I need to represent for purpose of information integration >the mental image of "Franco's stone", or is it sufficient from the modelled >fact that someone wrote this text and the quotation that we know and can >rely on that necessarily the writer had this mental image? This depends on >the intend use and queries of the model. For the CRM, we always ask for a >use case in which the modelled entity would serve a query and information >integration. Otherwise, such concepts can stay in our implicit understanding, >or in a much better scholarly text. Would you agree on that? > > > > > All this can be quite well documented in the CRM. If the stone >were the cause, different cultures couldn't have different perceptions about >the stone. So, I am not sure what else we would like to put into a formal >ontology? If we have evidence that the stone itself changes, we will model it. > > > I never said the contrary. But I am not sure (probably my ignorance) >that all the passages are correctly documented: > >I see not gap in the CRM so far! > > > > > 1. There is a stone (call it A) in the real world (probably an E18 >Physical Thing) > 2. There is a stone (call it B) mentioned in a source (a text, a > painting). >This is not a material stone, it is a conceptual one, > >Yes > > > > 3. The two stones are "the same”, or, better, the conceptual stone B >in the source may be associated to (identified with?) the physical one, A. > >This isomorphism of mental and physical world does not hold to my >understanding. This is, I believe, fundamental to understanding scientific >knowledge. This is on the agenda in the meeting this week. I'd say the real >stone has virtually unlimited properties, the image only a few. The real stone >justifies its images, which can be many, but they are never the same. >Different images may be compatible with the same stone. If we model them >as the same, we end up in logical inconsistencies, if we model them as a >relation of reference, we can reason about the relationship. In case we have >only the quotation, we may have different candidate real stones. >Normally, we can assume the writer had one in mind, but in a poetic text, he >may play with polysemy. Would that make sense? > > > > 4. Somebody has made the above association. > 5. This makes stone A an “interesting” thing. > >In the communities minds and documents. In oder to argue historically, we >need an oral witness we document or a document, isn't it? >Both are material carriers in the end, isn't it? > > > > If any of the above passages is removed (because it is wrong, it is a >fake, whatever) Stone A loses much if its interest. > >For a particular community... > > > > > Below two serious and a hilarious examples. > > First example (real, courtesy Achille Felicetti). "It comes and goes" > > In the 1970s’ a famous linguistic professor, Lejeune, had an Hungarian >student, Harmatta, also to become a famous scholar in linguistics, who told >him about the discovery in a part of ancient Pannonia (now Hungary) of some >Venetic inscriptions on a stone [our stone A], found in an excavation by >Elisabeth Jerem, a well-reputed archaeologist whom most of you will know >and who did not report about the “inscriptions". That language until then was >believed to be spoken only in Veneto by the Veneti. Based on images of the >inscriptions that the student brought to France, Harmatta graduated and >published academic studies. Lejeune also published further work endorsing >his student's paper, and a whole corpus was built about the Veneti of >Pannonia. [My comment: this turned the “engraved” stone into heritage, and >the stone entered the Pecs museum holdings] > In the early 1990's two Italian professors, Prosdocimi and Marinetti, >went to Hungary to see first hand the artifacts. Once at the museum of Pecs, >they looked at all the material cited in Harmatta's paper, and there were no >inscriptions! > What had believed to be an inscription were simply natural scratches >on the stone!! It then resulted that Lejeune had never seen the stone, only >poor images of it. > This finding was then indipendently confirmed by Austrian scholars, >and is now universally accepted. (See: A.L. Prosdocimi, Sulle inesistenti >iscrizioni venetiche di Pannonia, in "Rivista di Epigrafia Italica", sezione di >"Studi Etruschi" 58, 1992, pp.315-316). > > Thus stone A is “turned" by the first (Harmatta’s) “discovery” into >heritage, the witness of Venetic presence in modern Hungary, and >documented as such: E24 Physical Man-made Thing P128 carries E34 >Inscription P2 has type E55 Type “Venetic”. > > But in 1992 the stone A is “returned” by Prosdocimi to its pristine >state of irrelevant pebble: E19 Physical Thing P56 bears feature E26 Physical >Feature (scratches). > > Note that in the meanwhile the stone that we call A is unaware of all >these intellectual twiddles and academic fights, and lies in the Pecs museum >in a happy ataraxia state, as it has done for millennia. > > My point is that the first, pre-1992, statement is not factual, as >demonstrated by later research; interpretation should be acknowledged as >such. Christian-Emile’s ontologist should be aware of this, and avoid >endorsing dubious interpretations (actually, interpretations are always >dubious) by recording them as facts: “carries inscription”, are you sure? No, >you just trust Harmatta and Lejeune without saying it, so you should say >“carries inscription ACCORDING to Harmatta etc." > However, in most cases the interpretation is stable and pacific, so the >documenter may be content with a synthetic statement, i.e. without >mentioning the whys. > The issue is that the underlying ontology must allow for such >specification, when required, and this leads us in a risky route. Were >Harmatta and Lejeune talking of this stone, the one we call A? Or maybe >another one which was lost/discarded/... > > Back to the Pecs stone, or stone A as I call it: it has oscillated > between >being tangible heritage, and being just rubbish, with two different >documentations, both correct at some time, but with no physical change. > >Perfect knowledge revision use case. > > > > > This shows that the documentation may change with any change in >the documented object, contrarily to what Martin states above. > >I didn't say anything that is contrary to that! The ontology itself does not >define the facts, only the language to describe facts. >By "fact", we do not mean something "true", I think here is a terminological >misunderstanding, but a particular, justifiable state of affairs. >It is the knowledge base which either implicitly claims truth with respect to >the beliefs of the maintainers of the knowledge base or refers (CRMInf) to >who claims that XXX. In the CRM view, documentation never changes, it is >extended. It is a question of maintaining knowledge bases, which previous >beliefs to discard, but we would not regard it as a good practice. We just >describe with CRMInf a new state of beliefs, brought about by new evidence. >This is not a problem of intangible cultural heritage, but common to all >scientific knowledge. A community as a whole revises its knowledge when >better evidence comes up, at least as long as it is committed to scienctific >epistemology. > >With CRMInf we can trace the evolution of knowledge consistently. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Second example (real, courtesy of Sorin Hermon). “To be or not to be, >that is the question” > > The Venus of Berekhat Ram is a pebble found on the Golan Heights, >which by its discoverer was claimed to be a female figurine, or as it is >usually >called, a “Venus”. The artifact dates from Middle Palaeolithic (230.000 BC). It >is significant, because the oldest female figures known so far are dated >around 50.000 BC. > > Other scholars dispute this claim, as it is unclear: > a) if the scratches on the surface were man-made, and (a’) >intentional, i.e. carvings > b) if such carvings were made with the intention of representing >something > c) if the representation concerns a female. > > The full story with images is here: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Berekhat_Ram > > So what is this? Heritage or not? Possible heritage? And how do we >document it? > > a) E19 Physical Thing P56 bears feature E26 Physical Feature P2 has >type E55 Type “scratches" > a') E24 Physical Man-made Thing P56 bears feature E26 Physical >Feature P2 has type E55 Type “carvings” > b) E24 Physical Man-made Thing P65 shows visual item E38 Image > c) E24 Physical Man-made Thing P62 depicts (P62.1 mode of depiction >E55 Type “carvings”) E38 Image P2 has type E55 Type “Venus” > >I am a bit confused. The CRM never has modelled an entity or relationship >"heritage". The ontology itself does not deal with states of belief and >confidence, but provides a language to do so. CRMInf would encapsulate >different states of knowledge in "named graphs". >So a, a', b, c have different provenance and belief times. Then, it is a >technical question, how to present, archive, query etc. previous states in one >or more knowledge bases. The conflict only occurs, if you assume one correct >record per object. The CRM or any (good) ontology, however does not >describe data records, but an integrated knowledge base, which can be fed >from records of different provenance at different times. Therefore, there are >no descriptional components, only related items. But without the Named >Graph construct, a correct representation of a state of scientific knowledge is >impossible. >All you describe shows that the definition of what a knowledge base is in the >sense of the CRM is overdue, we are working feverishly on that :-) . > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Third example (fictitious, and a bit joking to relieve you from the pain >of reading up to here; courtesy Lehar for names and plot). > In the National Archaeological Museum of Pontevedro, among the >exhibits there is a stone coming from the archaeological site excavated by >Count Danilo. The stone is of difficult interpretation, however it is >considered part of the Pontevedran heritage as it is kept and exhibited in the >national museum [heritage is what museums consider as such]. After many >discussions and coups de theatre, the museum director, Count Zeta, decides >to ask Danilo why they brought that stone to the museum. It comes up that >the archaeological team used that stone just to keep a door open and avoid >that the wind slams it; it was packed with other similar stones, these being >“real" heritage assets, by the movers when the excavation was closed, and >when it arrived at the museum it was part of the “heritage” package, so it >went on display. In the meanwhile, Danilo has fallen in love with Hanna, a >rich museum sponsor, and they marry, what secures funding to archaeology >forever - but that’s ano! > ther sto > ry... > > This example shows that being heritage or not may depend on >randomness. It is fictitious, but an example of the opposite case i.e. real >heritage misunderstood as rubbish is reported here: >http://nypost.com/2015/10/27/modern-art-exhibit-mistaken-for-trash-and- >thrown-away/. > > --------------------------------------------- > > In conclusion, the moral is that Christian-Emile’s ontologist should >not embark in deciding whether the stone is true heritage or fake one. > >That has never been done and never been intended! The ontology cannot >decide the belief in a property encoded with its terms. It is up to the >maintainers of the knowledge base to associate their trust in its propositions >(CRMInf foresees an open vocabulary of trust values). Or, in other words, >there are no knowledge bases. Only information bases. Knowledge is in the >people. Therefore, a "knowledge base" without a known Actor believing it is >just "poetry". Knowledge changes continuously. It will never be fixed. But if >we are good scientists, knowledge becomes better with the time. > > > But the underlying ontology should provide tools to convey the >expert’s opinion about it and the documentation activity should also bear in >mind - often taking the liberty of disregarding it for practical reasons - that >the nature of things is not built-in, stamped in the things themselves, as >sometimes we are prone to believe. > >Sure, this is exactly why I argued against a stone "turning into"...and what >you describe works with CRMInf, implementation being another concern ;-) > > > > > Although men are not (yet) telepathic, Martin, there are methods >(e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method) supporting scientific >communication to increase our knowledge and enable reasoning. > >Oops, how do I deserve that ;-) ? That's exactly what I argue for! My point is >just to develop a clear understanding about the substance and way of >verification for each different kind of evidence. That needs analysis. That is >not "intangible" ;-) . > > > If incapable to deal with them, an ontology is just a sophisticated way >of setting up an (uninteresting) inventory of stuff. > >As above, ontology is not equal knowledge base. I think we completely >agree :-) ? >The respective documents are overdue for the CRM. > >Best, > >Martin > > > > > Best > > Franco > > > > > > (We could discuss Buddha's footprints next week?). > > This is hard to document together with the artifacts. >One may have the (perhaps wrong) impression that the CRM focuses on the >tangible details rather than on the equally important intangible ones. > > The CRM focusses on what we find in documentation >structures. Surprisingly, museum databases do not much analyze in formal >fields such "intangibles". I rember a workshop on history of art in Rome. >Asking about their concept of "work", participants clearly stated to me that >they do not want to discuss such a concept. In the end, librarians did, and >then we modelled it. There has never been any other judgement of focus in >the CRM than data structures maintained by relevant communities, and the >ability to assign an intersubjective identity to the entities we model, >because otherwise they would not integrate with other data. > > Of course, if relevant communities do not communicate with >us , we miss relevant foci ;-) > > best, > > martin > > > Franco > > Prof. Franco Niccolucci > Director, VAST-LAB > PIN - U. of Florence > Scientific Coordinator > ARIADNE - PARTHENOS > > Piazza Ciardi 25 > 59100 Prato, Italy > > > > > Il giorno 19 feb 2016, alle ore 14:29, > Christian- >Emil Smith Ore <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> ha >scritto: > > Intangible cultural heritage has partly become >a buzz-word. However, the term is ok. Documentation of intangible cultural >heritage has indeed very long traditions. This is what scholars in field >linguistics, philology, onomasiology etnogragraphy/etnology, social >anthropologists etc etc have been doing for centuries. It is nothing new here. >On should remember that an ontology is used to describe the way we can >conceptualise our understanding of the "intangible" in order to document it. > > The UNESCO declaration is also quite clear, >see below. In the CRM universe FRBRoo is the most suitable ontology. >Patrick Le Boeuf has given several presentations on this. > > Chr-Emil > > 1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the >practices, representations, expressions, > knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, >objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated > therewith – that communities, groups and, in >some cases, individuals recognize as part of their > cultural heritage. This intangible cultural >heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, > is constantly recreated by communities and >groups in response to their environment, their > interaction with nature and their history, and >provides them with a sense of identity and > continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural >diversity and human creativity. For the > purposes of this Convention, consideration >will be given solely to such intangible cultural > heritage as is compatible with existing >international human rights instruments, as well as with > the requirements of mutual respect among >communities, groups and individuals, and of > sustainable development. > > 2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as >defined in paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter > alia in the following domains: > (a) oral traditions and expressions, including >language as a vehicle of the intangible > cultural heritage; > (b) performing arts; > (c) social practices, rituals and festive > events; > (d) knowledge and practices concerning >nature and the universe; > (e) traditional craftsmanship. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig- >[email protected]] On Behalf Of martin > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:59 >PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Recording >Intangible Cultural Heritage > > Dear Phil, > > "Intangible heritage" is a bit a >buzzword. I suggest to identify different > senses: > > A) A particular activity, in particular >performances. FRBRoo contains a model > for that, but that can be refined. My >colleague George Bruseker has worked > on ome issues, may be other crm-sig >members have. > > B) A type of activity characteristic > for a >community, culture. Could be > technical know how, ceremonies etc. > This requires a pattern model as in >ecology, which "rises" CRM properties to > a "typically..." metalevel. We have >examples from biodiversity, may be other > crm-sig members have such models. > Each pattern is supported by evidence >by individual events. > > C) An oral tradition. These are >Information Objects, the carriers being people. > A slight modification of FRBRoo could >cover the details. > > Comments? > > Best, > > Martin > > On 19/2/2016 12:43 μμ, Carlisle, Philip >wrote: > > > Hi all, > > I’m resending this as it didn’t >appear to get through. > > > > > > As you may know the Arches >Project has been using the CRM as the > backbone for a cultural heritage >inventory system. This is working well and is > being implemented by many projects. > > > > One such project now wants to >use Arches to record intangible > heritage and so needs to create >resource graphs, based on an ontology, in > order to do this. > > > > Can the CRM be used to >represent the intangible heritage? If not > does anyone know of an ontology that >can? > > > > Phil > > > > Phil Carlisle > > Data Standards Supervisor > > Data Standards Unit, Listing >Group > > Historic England > > The Engine House > > Fire Fly Avenue > > Swindon > > SN2 2EH > > Tel: +44 (0)1793 414824 > > > > > <http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/> ><http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/> > > http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/ > > > <http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/> ><http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/> > http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ > > > > > > We are the public body that >looks after England's historic > environment. We champion historic >places, helping people to understand, > value and care for them, now and for >the future. > Sign up to our enewsletter to >keep up to date with our latest news, > advice and listings. > > HistoricEngland.org.uk >Twitter: @HistoricEngland > > This e-mail (and any >attachments) is confidential and may contain > personal views which are not the >views of Historic England unless specifically > stated. If you have received it in > error, >please delete it from your system and > notify the sender immediately. Do not >use, copy or disclose the information > in any way nor act in reliance on it. > Any >information sent to Historic England > may become publicly available. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [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 | > > ------------------------------------------------ >-------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm- >sig > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [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 | > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [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 | >--------------------------------------------------------------
