Dear All,
Issue 496 ended with homework by me, Par Riva and Thanasis Velios, abut
the functionality of a minimal CRM vocabulary:
Here is our proposal:
*The Functional role of a Minimal Vocabulary
*...to be used together with the CIDOC-CRM*
*
The policy of the CRM is to restrict classes to those that appear as
specific domains or ranges of CRM properties, because those properties
structure the knowledge base and frequently appear hard-coded in the
control-software, i.e., data entry, storage and access tools. Therefore
they are of much higher priority for system interoperability than the
classes without properties, which we model as instances of E55 Type,
i.e. as data, as usual in conceptual modelling of databases since their
conception.
Nevertheless, in certain cases the CRM makes important and non-obvious
ontological distinctions of specialization of CRM classes without
assigning specific properties to them. These may differentiate and
specialize even substance and identity criteria in a way that has a
bearing on the use of properties, as in the case of E10 Transfer of
Custody[AV2] : The kind of transfer of custody, i.e., either field
collection, transfer from one keeper to another or loss, can be
specified by E55 Type, and consequently the property associating the
donor or the receiver will not be used.
These distinctions normally appear in the scope notes with a hint about
the need for respective vocabularies. They further appear in examples.
Finally, a series of classes have been deprecated because they did not
need specific properties, but backwards compatibility would require that
they be turned into clearly recommended instances of E55 Type.
Over the past 30 years attempts to harmonize and integrate vocabularies
in the cultural heritage (CH) domain have widely failed. Rather, some
vocabularies play a more important role, but specialized needs are too
abundant to allow for a systematic integration, and volatile
vocabularies are an important tool of research in all sciences and
humanities.
Therefore, the CRM-SIG will recommend in a document separate from the
CIDOC CRM definition only those terms that are regarded to be important
for the above mentioned ontological distinctions, and unambiguous enough
to be fixed as standard. These may be linked or integrated as broader or
narrower terms into vocabularies of the user’s choice, in a way
compatible with the meaning of the classes of the CRM where they will be
used together.
The CRM-SIG may exemplify this on the base of the Art & Architecture
Thesaurus (AAT) or the Backbone Thesaurus (BBT).
Further, CRM will recommend the use of some standard vocabularies for
cases in which a good and comprehensive international practice exists,
such as measurement units, country codes etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
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
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email: [email protected]
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
