YES On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 7:15 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig < [email protected]> wrote:
> YES > > On 01/11/2022 09:53, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > I propose the deletion of the following classes of CRMdig. The reason > > that each should be deleted is listed beside it, but there are two > > basic, principled reasons for the proposal: > > > > 1) the class can be modelled using a more generic pattern from CRMbase > > or CRMdig without loss of semantic valence > > 2) the class violates a CIDOC CRM modelling principle / best practice, > > an alternative mode of expressing it already exists using standard > > modelling in CRM and SHOULD be employed > > > > Therefore, if our proposal is done correctly removing all these classes > > will serve to a) make the model lighter but just as semantically > > powerful, b) accord with CRM SIG general modelling principles and c) > > serve better as a middle level domain ontology for its area of scope. > > > > Martin Doerr, Rob Sanderson and Nicola Carboni have all contributed over > > time to this review or properties alongside myself as proposer. Any > > mistakes being mine. > > > > With that as background here are the proposed deletions: > > > > *D21 Person Name*: Obvious reasons. We already have a general E41 > > Appellation class and we do not specialize name classes endlessly but > > use the p2 has type formulation. > > > > *D23 Room*: Convenience class that is in fact not that convenient: use > > E53 Place > > > > This is a first list to which others may be added. At this time, I am > > happy to propose the above list for deletion as hopefully relatively > > uncontroversial. > > > > You can find the specification for CRMdig here: > > https://cidoc-crm.org/crmdig/sites/default/files/CRMdig_v3.2.1.pdf > > <https://cidoc-crm.org/crmdig/sites/default/files/CRMdig_v3.2.1.pdf> > > > > To read more on these classes. > > > > There are other problematic classes which need to be reanalyzed before > > they are considered for deletion or reworking. Separate issues will be > > raised for each of these as necessary. > > > > I call a vote now, ending on Nov 11. Please vote by answering YES to > > this emaill thread if you agree to these deletions or NO. If you vote > > NO, please indicate if you vote NO to all or if you vote NO to some part > > of the proposal. > > > > Thanks in advance for your interest and participation. > > > > Best, > > > > George > > Vice Chair CRM SIG > > > > -- > > George Bruseker, PhD > > Chief Executive Officer > > Takin.solutions Ltd. > > https://www.takin.solutions/ <https://www.takin.solutions/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Crm-sig mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > _______________________________________________ > 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
