Hi Dan,
If the terms were moved to an extension, for example moving Site to the Archaeological extension, would then they would still be available for use but not add to the complexity of the base model. I think there is some “food” they’re asking for, which is the cognitive cost of understanding them and when they should be used. If that cost is high compared to the value (which I argue that it currently is), then the result is decreased usage of the model. This “usability” cost is the primary driver for Linked Art – if we can do it once for the entire art domain, then every (art) museum or gallery has then had that cost pre-paid. If you have data in real systems that _require_ the classes we’ve set aside, we’d very much like to discuss those with you off-list. Hope that helps! Rob On 10/2/17, 7:31 AM, "Crm-sig on behalf of Dan Matei" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Friends, On 30 September 2017 at 17:24, martin <[email protected]> wrote: Some classes may be an overspecialization, this has to be discussed and respective classes be removed. Oh no ! Please do not remove anything ! I use almost all the CRM elements, in order not to loose nuances in my legacy databases (besides museum and library resources I have to model intangible resources - e.g. theatre productions). So I have to add elements from other ontologies and even – horror – to invent some more. I trust more the CRM elements than those I invent :-) Moreover, even if some CRM elements are not used too much, they do not ask for food. So... Please... Dan PS. You can establish Oskars for the "best" class of the year, the most popular property of the year, etc. And the "overspecialised" ones will earn no Oskar.
