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
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 the
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:[email protected]>> on behalf
of
YES,
Best,
Gerald
From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios Velios via
Crm-sig
Reply to: "[email protected]"
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 and
voted to
26th of March.
All the best,
Thanasis
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20210323/b24fc191/attachment.html>
--
Subject: Digest Footer
_
YES
Thanks everyone!
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 6:42 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig <
[email protected]> 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
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
Hm, Your veto has the consequence that the issue has to be postponed to the
next physical(that is electronical) meeting. This leaves us in an interesting
situation.
"At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and
voted to accept the reduction of the range of
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
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
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
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
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
Dear Francesco,
You did not violate any rule. My point was simply that the reduction has
already been accepted. The question was about an adjustment of the scope notes
so that they were in harmony with the reduced range.
I had some concern about the reduction but ended with the conclusion that
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
Der Christian-Emil, all,
I agree in all you say below.
I'd like to mention that we have the issue about position measurements,
and data evaluation as inference making in CRMinf. I'd suggest to see
these things together for a wider theory.
Best,
Martin
On 3/23/2021 10:12 PM, Christian-Emil
16 matches
Mail list logo
