In message <[email protected]>, Sean
Gillies <[email protected]> writes
There's much to like about CRM -- not the least of which is the active
and helpful community -- but I've concluded that it's overly
normalized for what I'm trying to do, which is to link data about
ancient inscriptions to data about places of the classical world.
Inscriptions are found or observed at places, but in the CRM this
relationship is always mediated by an event: an inscription is
discovered during a "finding event", which occurred at some place. We
are not ready to mint resources for all these events, most of which
will never be reused, and so we're bypassing and using non-CRM
properties to relate inscriptions and places.
Well, this is sort of where we came in - wanting an event ontology.
It's worth noting that within the CRM itself there is a practice of
declaring "short-cuts" to finesse over-complex relationships, replacing
them by a custom property (e.g. property "P130 shows features of" is a
short-cut for "P15 was influenced by" in the context of an event).
In the specific case you cite, the problem may be not so much to do with
the need to record events as to do with objects vs. places: there is the
property "P128 carries (is carried by)" which relates a physical
man-made thing to an information object. So inscriptions on objects are
catered for, but then you have to bring in additional machinery to
associate the object with the place where it was found, which is what
you are really interested in.
Richard
--
Richard Light
