Dear Martin, CRMdig does need a review, and CRMPe would be good to merge with it. I guess it's about finding the time / forum. For my particular modelling question, I am happy with the solution filed above. Eventually, though yes finding these border relations between family models should come on to the work horizon!
I think we should first review D1 and CRMDig, see how it fits to the > definitions from the PARTHENOS project. Then, we should identify a set of > issues, in particular check the > boundaries and overlaps with the other CRM extensions. > > I'd rather take a digital object to be one that has an exhaustive > representation in binary format, regardless whether this is done in > cuneiform script or on electronic media. > You mean it is 'persistent'... in the Parthenos sense? > > Since there are subtle implementation issues about where to stop > ontological representation and use data objects directly within a KB, we > should also finish the issue about how to represent a file. > Also would be great to have a FAQ on this since everyone does it differently. Maybe if we have time in the agenda at next SIG? Best, George
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
