Dear Robert,
On 9/30/2017 12:27 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
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).
Yes, I have not suggested that you wanted to create a new ontology:-). I
wanted to make clear that the CRM itself is no overt or hidden
recommendation what should be documented, only how you should document
something the CRM describes. This is a very frequent misunderstand, a
major obstacle to use. Users read the CRM classes and assume they have
to use them all. Then they get frightened, and make a smaller ontology,
reinventing the CRM, instead of picking out those they need. I have even
seen a PhD student in semantic Web technology that got such an advice
from its supervisor.
Piking out classes and properties as a "profile" is *absolutely good
practice*. It should, however, be specific enough to the use case.
For instance, if "Design or Procedure" has no use case, that means that
conservation has not been considered. If "Move" has no use case, it
means that object provenance has not been considered. That's fine, but
should be made explicit in the beginning.
There is absolutely no construct in the CRM without use case. So, the
statement should be "no use case in XXXX":-)
Some classes may be an overspecialization, this has to be discussed and
respective classes be removed.
Some classes are definitely "abstract" in most use cases, i.e., the user
will normally know more about the things she wants to describe, but they
are extremely useful for querying.
All the best,
Martin
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
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
