Thank you Martin!
Yes, the intent is absolutely not to create a new ontology or prevent anyone from doing what they want with the CRM ontology and its extensions, but instead to find the minimum viable set of classes and relationships to use for the majority of use cases that we encounter around the community. We are very careful not to deviate from the standard, which would create semantic incompatibilities between usage by adopters of the profile and those that do not (and hence the many questions over the past few months about some of the intended uses of things like Rights, Information Objects, and so on, to make sure that we /are/ following it whenever possible). We would very much welcome any feedback. Rob On 9/29/17, 9:31 AM, "Crm-sig on behalf of martin" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Dear All, This may find your interest: http://linked.art/model/profile/ Please note, that "simplifying the CRM" in the sense of recommending constructs not to use does not constitute another ontology, incompatibility or deviation from the standard. The standard is simply not prescriptive. I regard such simplification guidelines for specific communities as very useful. Best, martin -- -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 | --------------------------------------------------------------
