Dear all,
I fully agree that we must follow the principles of the ontology
development and remove classes that do not fulfil the criteria of being
classes in CRM Base. But, in my opinion, for specific classes of this
kind (that they seem not to fulfill the criteria because they don't have
Dear Mark, all,
why not, then, have a domain-independent CRM core and an extension for
museum documentation, perhaps generalized to CRMCH or something like
that? Apologies if this proposal is already on the table and I missed it.
Modularity at the core would sort out agendas, keeping
Dear all,
Thanks Paulos for pointing out the principle under discussion.
As this unexpectedly lively debate over a simple request for clearly
documenting in the standard a central and useful class has illustrated, the
principle in question appears ill formulated or incomplete since it sets a
Dear both,
The question was not if names can belong to language, or if langauges
create names. It was how this is unambiguously defined.
The example below is what I feared. The fact that the arabic script is
mainly used for Arabic, does itr make a *transcript *of an English name
"Arabic?"
To re-merge the threads, apologies for the duplication...
The language of an E33_E41 is the language in which the linguistic content
of the entity is expressed, per P72_has_language.
For example,
The language of the name of Douglas Adams (the Person) that has the
symbolic content of "Douglas
Dear all,
the theme of the 2022-2023 seminar of the LARHRA Digital history
research team is "Modelling, exploiting, publishing and reusing research
data: challenges and perspectives in history and social sciences".
Although in French, the sessions of this seminar may be of interest to
some
Dear Robert, All,
To my best knowledge, Title, Site and Inscription had been on the list
of classes potentially to be deleted, when the current principles for
minimality had been formulated. The respective decision not to delete is
documented in some minutes. It was extensively discussed and
Dear All,
I would like to focus on the semantic questions wrt E33_E41. Would it be
well defined? Please remember, that there were implementation arguments
against multiple instantiation, not semantic ones. Therefore, we decided
to solve the problem in the implementation side. Why the unlucky
Hi Carlo,
To my thinking, while intellectually that would be the neatest of
solutions, pragmatically it would be a huge problem not only for system
developers who rely on the continuity of CRM but also socially and
politically in terms of the CRMs embeddedness in the museum community and
its
The issue in question is 340:
https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-340-classes-without-properties
Discussed at SIG meetings 39, 41, and 43.
Whereby the classes in question were kept under this clause:
It can be useful as a leaf class (i.e. at the end of a CRM branch) to
domain communities building
Dear both,
I have to agree with Robert, I basically can't even conceive how this is an
argument. Obviously names come in languages MOST of the time. This is a
basic feature of living in a human society, is it not? Is this not a base
experience of being embodied as a human being that we all
or to put it another way, if one only lived in a world of CRMese and knew
nothing else about the world in itself, understanding what E33_E41 is is
just a question of understanding what E35_Title is and then taking the
conceptual leap that it can be applied to E1. That's it! Names, in a
language,
Hi Martin,
I think the new evidence is the new precedent of including classes in the
RDFS that are not documented in the formal standard, where those classes
are deemed not to meet the minimality requirements. Also your very
reasonable assertion to be objective in the application of those rules,
Dear Martin,
I don't see an ontological problem here. One name can be used by / in many
languages. If it is, that can be documented.
> The question was not if names can belong to language, or if langauges
> create names. It was how this is unambiguously defined.
>
It isn't our job as
Unsurprisingly, I agree with George.
The quantification of P72 has language is many to many, necessary.
Meaning that a Linguistic Object can have many languages, and each Language
can be the language of many Linguistic Objects.
So, if you wanted to say that my name is "Robert Sanderson", and
15 matches
Mail list logo
