Dear all, I have read through the profile and especially the list of usefull, abstract and unnecessary classes. . It is not very controversial. It demonstrates the strength of CIDOC-CRM. The profile can be useful as a starting point for a discussion about superfluous classes which we should make an issue.
Below I have some quick comments. Best, Christian-Emil Most of the classes marked for deletion are the large variety of appellations of some sort or highly specialised classes from the early development of CRM (mark, inscription,title). Some of the classes marked for deletion are hooks to be used for extensions (E27 Site for CRM Archeo). The profile suggest to delete some of the subclasses of E73 Information Object E29 Design or Procedure: “no use cases” E31 Document “to be deleted” E33 Linguistic Object E36 Visual Item It also suggests to delete E38_Image (subclass of E36 Visual Item) The subclasses of E73 Information Object should be an issue in itself: E33 Linguistic object is defined as “Instances of E33 Linguistic Object can be expressed in many ways: e.g. as written texts, recorded speech or sign language.» and cover human linguistic utterances E36 Visual Item covers what can be seen (by humans). But there are no subclasses for what we can hear or feel. The main reason may be the original objective of CRM to model what is stored in museum collections. The class E83_Type_Creation is intended to model the process one find in systematic biology. In my view this should be kept. E9_Move has a comment ‘no use cases’. The class is very useful in describing provenance of objects. An argument against the class is that it only describes a transition from one place to another. E78 Collection and E78 Curated Holding. There is an error in the CRM 6.2.2 definition from December 2016. The change form Collection to Curated Holding is not done throughout the document. ________________________________________ From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Robert Sanderson <[email protected]> Sent: 29 September 2017 23:27 To: crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] using CRM 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 | -------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
