Dear Robert,
If the CRM would describe the world, we would be gods ;-). Seriously
now, since this is impossible,
the CRM follows an Open World and Bottom Up development. We model only,
what we have understood.
The Open World principle states that what is not said may be true or not.
So, an auction lot, which is not an E78, but is kept functionaly
together for the purpose of the auction, is just an E19. If it contains
real estate, it is an E18.
Hoards by the way, have of course a clear functionality, to safeguard a
treasure, and are therefore together. They are E19s. That the owner may
have lost control over them, does not change their raison d'etre.
The set of objects on a photo are different, they form an accidental
whole and do not have an identity condition without the photo. The CRM
did not have these so far in its scope, so you are free to add such
things, without violating CRM compatibility. The CRM does not say, that
these things do not exist, nor that you cannot talk about them when you
use the CRM. The CRM is NOT a data format!!
May I take it as compliment that "It is certainly arguable that CRM is
too complicated where it doesn’t matter, and not complicated enough
where it does."?
All constructs in the CRM have been driven by community demands. We
normally require evidence that you already have a database with such
fields, and that the information is relevant across specialized
disciplines. This has exactly the effect you describe for any specialist
:-D, but it has allowed for relating information across domains that
could never before talk to each other, and that in the end provide
important information to both specialists and those trying to understand
the larger pictures of the past.
If we would standardize all specialist needs, we would never have
arrived where we are now.
Best,
Martin
On 14/4/2017 5:20 πμ, Robert Sanderson wrote:
And regardless of the hierarchy, if there is a set of objects that are not
“physically bound together or […] kept together for their functionality” (hence
not E19), but do not have a “particular collection development plan” (hence not
E78 either) … how should they be modeled? Examples include auction lots, the
set of objects that are looked after by an art dealer (but without a
development plan), and similar.
Many thanks!
Rob
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
