Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote, broader vision

Dear Francesco, Thank you for these important considerations. I do support your broader vision. I see several specific challenges that should better be respected on a common path to this vision, which I'd like to explicate and write up the next days, so that we can discuss and effectively

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Dear Martin, It is to me to thank you so much for taking the time to restate the whole issue from the point of view of the methodology used to develop the CRM, making very clear the reasons for the decision that was taken by the SIG. I understand your arguments and they are certainly robust

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote and you may have noticed that I did not vote - I just wanted to stimulate reflection, and I will not bore you anymore. I will reply Martin directly. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus Technology Director

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Dear Fancesco, Thank you very much for reconsidering and withdrawing your veto. By mistake, I send my message before finishing it. Please let me be more analytical about the arguments. Your arguments in the SIG meeting have been well understood and well respected, and been evaluated against

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

subjective decisions and thus instances of attribute assignment? Best, Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig Sent: 23 March 2021 20:35 To: Francesco Beretta Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

and you may have noticed that I did not vote - I just wanted to stimulate reflection, and I will not bore you anymore. I will reply Martin directly. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus Technology Director 4CH Editor-in-Chief

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Dear Martin, Christian-Emil, all, In order not to block a development that seems to be largely consensual, and considering that my veto apparently violates the SIG rules, I withdraw it and simply vote NO. If the majority thinks that the problem I have pointed to is not a problem and that

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Dear Francesco, Your concerns well respected, please let me explain a few things: Firstly, this e-vote is not about the reduction of the range of P39 from E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing. The reduction was decided in the last CRM-SIG with good majority after considering all pros and

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Dear Franco, Now I am fairly confused about with what you actually agree: You write: "This concept was, indeed, an Attribute Assignment - quite obviously as it is its superclass so every measurement is an attribute assignment. But what should be pursued, in my opinion, is the right balance

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

I strongly agree with Francesco. Some time ago I wrote a paper about reliability assessment, suggesting that it could be considered a sort of measurement, perhaps a subclass of E16. It was not a proposal for the CRM SIG, just considerations about the fact that at present there is no

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

ted, recommend changes and call an e-vote for those. " Best, Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig Sent: 23 March 2021 14:20 To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote Dear all, as already stated in the SIG me

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Dear all, as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity, and more largely with substantially changing the substance of a class without changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of coins" is now _excluded_. So

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

YES Thanks everyone! On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 6:42 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig < crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > Dear all, > > At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and > voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1 > CRM Entity

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Christian SNM To: crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote Message-ID: <12daf18d29374ab1a79c52d3fbe55068@snm108s.snm01.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Yes! Christian Von: Crm-sig Im Auftrag von Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. M

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

YES, Best, Gerald From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig Reply to: "thana...@softicon.co.uk" Date: Friday, 19. March 2021 at 11:49 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote Dear all, At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Yes! Christian Von: Crm-sig Im Auftrag von Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. März 2021 12:29 An: crm-sig Betreff: Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote ​Yes Chr-Emil Ore From: Crm-sig mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

​Yes Chr-Emil Ore From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig Sent: 19 March 2021 11:37 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote Dear all, At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and voted to accept

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

YES All the best, Øyvind > Am 19.03.2021 um 11:37 schrieb Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig > : > > Dear all, > > At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and > voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1 > CRM Entity to E18

[Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Dear all, At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing. Homework was assigned to check how scope notes and related properties are affected, recommend