Hi Christian-Emil,
Could you provide some pointers to data that has Moves? In our experience Move is theoretically important, but we could not find any museum that had Move activities that weren’t better described as a Transfer of Custody. In particular: • No history of internal movement between galleries / sites (which would not be a change of custody) • No history of the actual movement of the object between institutions (e.g. for exhibitions), which would be better as a transfer of custody anyway. • Disincentive to record these events or make them public as it encourages theft • No real incentive to integrate shipping/tracking and descriptive systems We’re very happy to move terms around, but only with good cause :) In particular, two institutions that both require the class and have actual data to support it… preferably also with the intent to publish that data. Rob On 10/2/17, 11:59 AM, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore" <[email protected]> wrote: Before Getty(?) send out the the profile to all arts museum, maybe one could go through the list once more and add a few central classes, move is one of them. Best Christian-Emil ________________________________________ From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Robert Sanderson <[email protected]> Sent: 02 October 2017 19:15 To: Dan Matei; martin Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE using CRM 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. _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
