YES On Tue, Nov 1, 2022, 10:56 George Bruseker via Crm-sig <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear all, > > I propose the deletion of the following properties 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 property can be modelled using a more generic pattern from CRMbase > or CRMdig without loss of semantic valence > 2) the property 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 properties > 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: > > *Delete:* L4 has preferred label: inconsistent with the rest of CRM, > redundant to other ontologies > > *Keep until D11/D9 revision is understood*: L20 has created: because D9 > is removed (but see also D11) > > *Keep, not marginal: *L24 created logfile: creates a file of type > ‘logfile’ (used to separate derivative output from automated provenance > reporting.) > > *Delete:* L29 has responsible organization: unnecessary sub property just > use p14 > *Delete:* L30 has operator: unnecessary sub property just use p14 > > *Delete: *L31 has starting date-time: inconsistent modelling, use time > span like everyone else > *Delete: *L32: has ending date time: inconsistent modelling, use time > span like everyone else > > *Delete:* L33: has maker: this property violates event modelling. If it > continues to exist then E73 should have ‘has author’ (local project > requirements...) > > *Delete:* L34 has contractor: unnecessary sub property of an unnecessary > subproperty, use p14 > > *Delete: *L35 has commissioner: unnecessary sub property, use p14 > > *Delete: *L47 has comment: not ontological at all > > *Delete: *L51 has first name: inconsistent non ontological modelling, > anathema! > *Delete: *L52 has last name: see above > *Delete: *L53 is not uniquely identified by: this is not a way to encode > a negation and does not say anything (see also neg properties question) > *Delete: *L55 has inventory number: this is not ontological, please use > standard modelling > *Delete: *L56 has pixel width: no standard modelling, use dimension > *Delete: *L57 has pixel height: non standard modelling, use dimension > *Delete: *L59 has serial number: non standard modelling, use E42 > > *Delete: *L61 was on going at: again non standard time modelling for > convenience sake > > 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 > > To read more on these properties. > > 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/ > _______________________________________________ > 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
