YES. Happy (after the SIG, due to timing) test this out in practice by trying to write up the Linked Art ontology extensions using it.
Rob On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 6:02 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > This issue is about agreeing a template based on which the specification > documents of CRM family models will be produced. The working document for > this issue is here: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N09On4q4j4c8mIvSfMZTsWk-vsUIkdn2jRIzBlW8smU/edit?usp=sharing > > The proposed template is here: > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xWq1SIcoSNMmmwpO3TfE6LTC9cYsRapy/view?usp=sharing > > The vote is to decide on whether to adopt the template document. The main > change from the existing template is the inclusion of a table for class and > property dependencies to allow clear references to other models without > repeating material and while keeping track of different versions. > > The possible votes are: > > - Yes = accept/agree > - No = do not accept/agree > - Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes, > but there is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish > to stop the proposal, in which case you should also write a justification > and reformulate the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change is unacceptable because > it violates the following principle...') > > Please send your e-votes by the 28th of June. > > All the best, > > Thanasis > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
