Dear Stefano, CIDOC CRM is primarily about interoperability (data integration) and it is the semantic framework that it creates that provides this. Once this is solved then you need to provide access that provides a good balance between precision and recall. However, this balance will depend upon the audience. To achieve this we aggregate CRM paths to a higher and broader level with accessible labels. These rules can be adjusted depending upon the audience the UI is designed for.
Therefore people can use CRM with keyboardless graphical front ends for tablets (drag and drop only) that use broader aggregations and fewer relationships, or we can provide more precise paths for more research orientated UIs. It is the underlying contextual relationships of CRM that make the experience more interesting - but these do not have to be exposed explicitly creating powerful but simple interfaces. We can also configure these rules to bias particular areas of cultural heritage, for example, some paths may be more useful in art history (and make these paths user configurable). However, these are made possible by the CRM in the first instance providing a link between macro and micro views as they are required (possibly similar to a relational database view, for example, just with contextual meaning). While CRM can power a simple graphical tablet systems it can and equally build more explicit interfaces that make exploration of scientific data possible for scientists and conservators. The underlying data is the same high quality representation used in different ways to help different audiences explore. This helps also bring audiences together (interoperability of people) for collaborative knowledge building. FRBRoo is simply a specialisation of CRM classes and therefore anything encoded in FRBRoo is already harmonised with other CRM data and is part of the same abstraction I describe above. There are very few new classes in FRBRoo - they are mostly sub classes of CRM. Because CRM integrates at the different levels in the class hierarchy, bibliographic and performing arts data can not only be integrated with other CH data but meaningful paths of exploration can be used between them, and each can use the other for additional context helping to discover new relationships. There is an approved OWL version of CRM created in Germany. However, OWL is not necessary for many things and we are using SPIN which allows us to create reasoned views using simple SPARQL queries. Cheers, Dominic On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Dominic Oldman <dold...@britishmuseum.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of > Stefano Cossu > Sent: 18 November 2015 17:24 > To: mcn-l@mcn.edu > Subject: Re: [MCN-L] LAM interoperability SIG? > > Dominic, > Thanks for your outstanding report on the activities around > interoperability. > > I agree that CIDOC-CRM is gaining popularity. It is also great to know > that there is an OWL serialization for it [1]. > > How do you see CIDOC-CRM compared to FRBRoo in terms of bridging the gap > between cultural heritage disciplines? > > I also strongly agree with your point about abstraction. One of the topics > that we touched in our session was that CIDOC-CRM, while being extremely > flexible, is also hardly usable by humans on a daily basis. > Since collection managers and librarians cannot catalog records using > these models directly, we need an abstraction layer to map cataloging > ontologies into the broader CIDOC-CRM. I would love to see, e.g. a RDF > serialization of CDWA(I think that there is some effort in that direction > with CONA[2]). I am curious to see what you and the Swedish National > Archives are doing in this regard. > > Also, if you want a human-readable publishing platform (website, mobile > app, etc.) you need another layer that maps these broad models to something > more fit for human consumption, e.g. dcterms, VRA core, or such. CIDOC-CRM > can be used for cross-institutional interoperability or search/query APIs > where you want to retain the full complexity of the model. > > Thanks, > Stefano > > [1] http://erlangen-crm.org/ > [2] http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/cona/about.html > > On 11/17/2015 12:56 PM, mcn-l-requ...@mcn.edu wrote: > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:58:36 +0000 > > From: Dominic Oldman<do...@oldman.me.uk> To:"mcn-l@mcn.edu" > > <mcn-l@mcn.edu> > > Subject: [MCN-L] LAM interoperability SIG? > > Message-ID: > > <CAHVLp01w= > qodfhznfqyr5xxjlwkgoszcxqzeyb9aj1rqp-+...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Dear Stefano, > > > > This looks like a good initiative and I would like to take you up on > > your invite to comment. > > > > Interoperability of archives, libraries and museums is a complicated > > undertaking (involving people as much as data) and something that the > > cultural heritage sector has been working on for some considerable > > time. I would suggest that we now have some mature solutions to this > > complex problem, but with more open data initiatives this subject is > > rightly back on the agenda. > > > > There have been many initiatives past and present however, the > > results of some aggregations don?t always lend themselves to all areas > of reuse. > > Bringing together completely different data schemas that use different > > specialist classification systems is potentially complicated and some > > solutions have tended to compromise the original meaning/context of > > the data by using fixed or too generalised models. It also requires a > > framework of ongoing collaboration. > > > > We are soon to release open source software generously funded by the > > Andrew Mellon Foundation which achieves data harmonisation between > > different institutions without loss of meaning and context ? and > > indeed can often provide richer representations compared to the > > original source dataset. The CIDOC CRM has not been well represented > > in the past and until now (more institutions are now adopting it) has > > largely been used within the academic community. However, in > > comparison to other integration approaches it provides a very high > > quality solution but is far easier to implement than has been > > represented in the community. It transforms data into a semantic > > framework that allows, not just interoperability, but sophisticated > > search, analysis, reconciliation and provenance tools. Its language is > > based on that used by cultural heritage and humanities subject experts > > rather than technologists and therefore seeks more engagement from the > curatorial, archivist and librarian community. > > > > With other groups (e.g. Ariadne project) we have starting running > > workshops aimed at non-technical cultural heritage experts ? the first > > was held at Yale University and the second recently at Oxford > > University with representatives from a wide range of organisations. We > > have a number of participants mapping data to CIDOC CRM using a > > simple, mostly non-technical mapping tool ? which is unique because it > > separates out the mapping of data and knowledge (from people) from > > more technical processes such as URI and Linked Data generation which > > often complicate the mapping process. More workshops will hopefully take > place in 2016. > > > > The aim is that organisations can curate and develop their own CIDOC > > CRM data representations locally. This is crucial for ongoing > > sustainability and long lasting interoperability. Removing technical > > barriers makes this possible. In summary the process is; > > > > -Data owners are trained to create accurate and contextual > > representations of their data (putting back information that was lost > > in technical digitisation processes, making what is implicit and > > ambiguous - explicit) giving it high reuse and integration qualities ? > > whether for research, engagement or education. Contextual > > relationships create a semantic framework for integration and > > reconciliation and make exploration a richer experience in all these > > different areas. For this, a consortium run from the Swedish National > > Archives has created a unique type of mapping system called Mapping > > Memory Manager (3M). This tool is at the core of a number of projects > > and has continued funding. A future objective is to create a knowledge > > base of cultural data patterns relevant across all areas of cultural > > heritage. The system is freely available as a web application and > existing mappings are viewable by the community. > > > > -We have implemented a system that provides a higher level of > > abstraction, originally developed by FORTH (Crete), which creates a > > stable platform for application development against CIDOC CRM. This > > level of abstraction works a little like a semantic "database VIEW" > > and regardless of the type of CIDOC CRM data (and regardless of > > whether it is from a library, archive or > > museum) the abstraction creates a consistent and coherent interface > > based on Fundamental Categories ? Things, Actors, Places, Events, Time, > Concepts. > > These categories are connected by a matrix of Fundamental > > Relationships which provide accessible entry and exploration points to > > the data and allow the development of user interfaces that span > > libraries, archives, museums, etc. e.g.http://tinyurl.com/o5u6wj5. > > Broader more general, or conversely more specialised user interfaces > > can be developed by using different levels of abstraction. > > > > -Members of this community are starting to use a consistent open > > source semantic technology platform to produce open source > > applications that make use of cultural heritage knowledge graphs. It > > is being used and proposed for use in a number of projects both EU and > > National. This semantic environment and the stable semantic > > abstraction mean that these tools operate together or independently > > and can be reused, customised, and parameterised. Some of these tools > aim to allow community data enrichment. > > The first public alpha for comment will harmonise across British > > Museum and Rijksmuseum data with other datasets being added iteratively. > > > > However, what is key is that CIDOC CRM is not really dependent on > > any particular technology and this is also key for long standing > > interoperability and collaborative relationships between institutions. > > > > Hope this is of interest to MCN members and happy to provide more > > information. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dominic > > -- > > Stefano Cossu > Director of Application Services, Collections > > The Art Institute of Chicago > 116 S. Michigan Ave. > Chicago, IL 60603 > 312-499-4026 > >
_______________________________________________ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l@mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://mcn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://www.mail-archive.com/mcn-l@mcn.edu/
