Thank you, Franco.
I completely agree with your assessment here. The concern with the current model, of course, is that E34 Inscription is a subclass of E33 Linguistic Object (along with E37 Mark) meaning that every Inscription is also a Linguistic Object. For your examples, before the content can be ascertained to actually have linguistic content, I would imagine them to be only E36 Visual Items. I’ll update the analysis with this clarification. And also, for clarity about the scope, this work does not take into account any of the extensions to CRM, only the core model as expressed in RDF. Thank you again! :) Rob On 6/21/17, 11:25 AM, "Franco Niccolucci" <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Robert I had a look at the page. Interesting, at first sight I agree with most of the statements there, but it will require more attention to comment. Anyway, there’s one thing I can say now. I think that the analysis of E34 Inscription is a bit superficial. An inscription, as epigraphists know well, has several dimensions and the proposed use of E33 captures only the text one. Instead, it is important also to consider the graphic component and the material one. Example 1: the Phaistos disk has an as yet undeciphered linguistic content - we could imagine that the creators made bizarre figures just to puzzle future archaeologists: it actually could not be a linguistic object, and I would be scared to define it only this way. Example 2: in the Sherlock Holmes novel “The adventure of the Dancing Men” in the collection “The Return of Sherlock Holmes" the paper messages are inscriptions on paper. They become linguistic objects only when deciphered by the Consulting Detective - if you don’t know the story you may wish to read it. My colleague Achille Felicetti has developed a CRM extension for epigraphy which aims to manage all these aspects and he may wish to explain better than me how they propose to do it, or refer to a paper where he has detailed the whole model. More to follow on other Best, Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 21 giu 2017, alle ore 18:19, Robert Sanderson <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > > Hi Philip, > > Indeed, _all_ of the subclasses of E41 other than E42 should probably be deprecated. They add nothing new, semantically, compared to Appellation. > Also the subclasses of E13 … (E14-E17) are overly specific, and insufficient. There’s no Assignment for Appellations, for example, yet naming things occurs all the time. > > Even if they’re not officially deprecated, organizations actually producing data should simply not use them. > > For interest’s sake, our analysis of which classes in the CRM are useful: > http://linked.art/model/profile/class_analysis.html > > Rob > > On 6/21/17, 3:12 AM, "Crm-sig on behalf of Carlisle, Philip" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > I’m currently creating new resource models for the Arches project and looking at Actors. > > Since E82 has been deprecated in favour of E41 then surely P131 should also be deprecated along with the text in the introduction which refers to these in CRM Compatibility of > Information Systems paragraph 3 – “Note that there is no minimum requirement for the classes and properties that must be present in the exported user data. Therefore it is possible that the > data may pertain to instances of just a single property, such as E21 Person. > P131 is identified by: E82 Actor Appellation.”. > > Plus the references in the Property hierarchy and the entries for P1 and E39 > > Phil > > Phil Carlisle > Knowledge Organization Specialist > Listing Group, Historic England > Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824 > > http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/ > http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ > > Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are valued for their skillsand knowledge, and where communication, customer focus and working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do. > > > > > > > <http://www.historicengland.org.uk/> > > We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic environment, and protect it for the future. > Historic England <http://bit.ly/1OuxROd> is a public body, and we champion everyone’s heritage, across England. > > > Follow us: Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/HistoricEngland> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/HistoricEngland> | > Instagram <https://www.instagram.com/historicengland/> Sign up to our > newsletter <http://bit.ly/1p49z1e> > Help us create a list of the 100 places which tell England's remarkable story and its impact on the world. > A History of England in 100 Places <https://historicengland.org.uk/100places>. > > > > 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
