[Crm-sig] Homework from Issue 486: Scope note of O19, O21

[Robert Sanderson]

HW from the Oct 2020 SIG to review the scope notes for O19 and O21, given
the relabeling of the properties to use "encounter" rather than "found".

O19 current scope note:

This property associates an instance of S19 Encounter Event with an
instance of E18 Physical

Thing that has been found.


Proposed new scope note:

This property associates an instance of S19 Encounter Event with an
instance of E18 Physical Thing that was encountered or observed as present
during the event.

O21 current scope note:

This property associates an instance of S19 Encounter Event with an
instance of E53 Place at which an encounter event found things. It
identifies the narrower spatial location in which a thing was found at.
This maybe known or given in absolute terms or relative to the thing found.
It describes a position within the area in which the instance of the
encounter event occurred and found something.


Proposed new scope note:

This property associates an instance of S19 Encounter Event with an
instance of E53 Place at which the things which were encountered were
observed to be present. This may be given in absolute terms or in terms
relative to the observed thing. The referenced place must be within the
boundaries of the E53 Place at which the S19 Encounter Event P7 took place
at, if that is given.


Rob

-- 
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Propose New Issue: Named Graph Usage Recommendations / Guideline Document

[George Bruseker]

Dear all,

As a complement to the work going on in issue 382 on where to document and
where not to document provenance, I suggest a parallel avenue of
research/work related to the implementation of named graphs for data sets
using CIDOC CRM. As named graphs are now commonly used in semantic data
management, it seems apropos as a community to have a recommendation of
good practice similar to what we have done with the RDF implementation
document (outside of the spec, but related to real world use).

This issue is something that is especially of interest to organizations
involved in and intending to implement aggregations of CH datasets where
the issue of named graphs have to do, inter alia, with both questions of
provenance but also questions of maintenance and updating of the semantic
data graph.

To this end, together with Philippe Michon and the team at CHIN, we have
been putting together a set of questions, to try to pick out the actual
practice of named graph usage in the CIDOC CRM community as a basis from
which to create a empirically grounded best practice
recommendation/strategy.

Time permitting, we would like to share our current ideas/questions during
the SIG, and then share a survey with the community.

Otherwise, we can continue this conversation virtually.

Best,

George
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Example for E81

[Martin Doerr]

Dear All,

As it appears that the transformation of the Dominicanenkerk in 
Maastricht is rather an example for reuse than transformation,


I propose the following example:


The transformation of the /Hephaisteion /temple in Athens, better known 
as "Theseion"/,/ into a Christian church 
, dedicated to Saint 
George  around AD 700 [which 
actually helped preserving part of the antique temple structure from 449BC]


best

Martin

--

 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: mar...@ics.forth.gr
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig