Fantastic! Thank you for sharing and you are first in the list.
For the rest in list and if you did not attend today's sessions,
following discussion for issue 530, a working group is being formed to
discuss bias in the CRM. Please let me know if you wish to contribute to
the discussion.
ject.ca/<https://lincsproject.ca/>
----
*From:* Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios
Velios via Crm-sig
*Sent:* March 8, 2021 12:52 PM
*To:* crm-sig
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Issue:530 Bias in the CRM
EXTERNAL EMAIL:
Fantastic! Thank you for sharing and you are first in
lt;https://lincsproject.ca/><https://lincsproject.ca/
<https://lincsproject.ca/>>
--------------------
*From:* Crm-sig on behalf of
Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
*Sent:* March 8, 2021 12:52 P
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
Dear all,
During discussions on the future of activity plans it appears that we
have 3 options:
1) Activity plans to remain as part of CRMsoc. This makes sense since
obeying laws and receiving penalties take place in societies and such
things appear to match the model for activity plans.
Dear all,
To follow up with this, and with the usual apologies for potentially
misunderstanding the objective of the issue, I have done a quick scan of
the CRM document to identify where these recommendations for types are
done. Some are rather implicit but may be worth considering:
* E4:
Dear all,
With Martin's contribution I am sending the updated homework for the
example templates. You can find it here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YtZBSx5ZCOQ5ntFUf34TY-_aeR4OIrJY/view?usp=sharing
and here:
Dear all,
My homework for this issue was to check for cases of integration for
sound in sound arts. I spoke with a professor of sound art in UAL and
from the examples we discussed it appears that there are very few
collections systematically cataloguing sound art and they hardly
document
I have created a quick drawing which I think captures the proposed
changes if people find it easier instead of the text (I do :-) ). I
think the proposed changes seem reasonable and also help tidying up the
property hierarchy.
drawio:
Maybe we have failed to document the issue in its development but my
understanding was that we were looking for use cases from sound arts
where a sound piece with distinct identity (for example) has been used
as part of another sound piece. The integration would have been required
to identify
Dear all,
This issue is about agreeing a rationale and a template based on
which CRMbase and CRM extension examples will be produced. The
working document for this issue is here:
Dear all,
This issue is about agreeing a template based on which the
specification documents of CRM family models will be produced. The
working document for this issue is here:
enter the full reference. As a
footnote/endnote? If no full reference is provided, the citation is
meaningless...
Best regards
Maja
*Od:* Crm-sig v imenu Athanasios Velios
via Crm-sig
*Poslano:* petek, 18. junij 2021
I agree with this. Shouldn't it be part of the RDF implementation document?
Thanasis
On 20/07/2021 15:37, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:
Wholehearted agreement. Even if they're expressed in different ways by
different representations of the conceptual model, if we can standardize
the
I think this would be a useful discussion and class. It has also been
proposed within the PARCOURS model although perhaps a tighter proposal
can be made.
Thanasis
P.S. The example for P103 could do with updating...
On 01/09/2021 20:47, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
Hi George,
I think
Dear all,
What is the current practice for modelling online events such as the SIG
meetings on zoom or speaking to someone on the phone. The phenomena are
coherent in that there is meaningful interaction with/through devices as
a result of the discussion. Do people consider the event simply
YES
On 27/11/2021 20:21, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear All,
It is a great pleasure and honor for us to announce that the Palace
Museum in Beijing applies for CRM-SIG membership.
I have received the following request from the Museum:
"The Palace Museum would like to apply for the
Hm, yes, this is confusing. We might need a new issue to update the
scope note. I think the correct class is E24 as it seems that E80 Part
Removal does not cover cases such as cutting a stalactite off in a cave.
Thanasis
On 29/11/2021 15:41, Erin Canning via Crm-sig wrote:
Hello,
I am
E78 is an E24
Physical Human-Made Thing, but not an E19 Physical Object. If we use
E78 to model sub-collections, and sub-collections can be removed from
their parent, then yes, here is a case where we need E18.
Rob
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
mailto:crm-sig@
> E78 to model sub-collections, and sub-collections can be removed
from
> their parent, then yes, here is a case where we need E18.
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
> mailto:crm-sig@ic
> cannot be removed, ruling out E26 and below. However E78
is an E24
> > Physical Human-Made Thing, but not an E19 Physical
Object. If we
> use
> > E78 to model sub-collections, and sub-collections can be
removed
> from
> > their parent, the
In which case I suppose the proposal to discuss at the next SIG is:
1) change the range of P112 from E24 Physical Human-Made Thing to E18
Physical Thing
2) fix the reference to the property under the scope note of E80
3) add an example to E80 and a corresponding example to P112 for
Hi George, all,
As part of Linked Conservation Data (and with the help of Carlo, Martin
and Steve) we proposed the idea of Typed Properties which derive from
current CRM properties and always have E55 Type as range.
E.g. "bears feature" → "bears feature of type" so that one can describe
the
; property what happens with the extant 'type of'
properties? I assume there isn't any has general purpose of type
property... or is there?
Cheers
G
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 9:20 PM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi George, all,
As
Forgive me George for bringing up my original comment - it is entirely
possible that I have not understood the problem.
It seems to me that what is really missing is the connection between the
event and the outcome. It seems that you are saying that it is a causal
connection. Shortcutting
In which case, can I suggest the following change to the scope note:
Old scope note:
This property describes the active participation of an instance of E39
Actor in an instance of E7 Activity. It implies causal or legal
responsibility. The P14.1 in the role of property of the property
Dear all,
The preparation of version 7 largely coincided with the disruption
caused by COVID-19 which saw the CRM-SIG meetings moving online. In
order to prepare for the online meetings and organise the work of the
SIG an ad-hoc group was formed consisting of the chairs of the CIDOC-CRM
SIG,
ion.
All the best,
Thanasis
On 13/12/2021 09:58, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
In which case I suppose the proposal to discuss at the next SIG is:
1) change the range of P112 from E24 Physical Human-Made Thing to E18
Physical Thing
2) fix the reference to the property under the scope not
he added part looses its identity
within the whole it augmented (and then be a destruction event??) may
probably be too exotic (Frodo's Ring not withstanding).
All the best,
Martin
On 1/25/2022 3:20 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
It turns out that we might also need to
Dear all,
Please find attached the version of CRMact which is submitted here for
approval at the next SIG. Scope notes have been agreed already but
please check the introductory text and bring comments to the meeting.
Many thanks to Vincent for the OntoMe support which made this work
easier
Dear all,
I was thinking that we can connect the example for Observable Situation
with the example about flooding from CRMact for which their a draft
property to connect to situation. So the proposed example is:
* the depth of the river Thames being 10 meters [i.e. about to overflow
at
Dear all,
I am reading through the discussion on issue 588
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-588-common-policy-method-for-implementing-the-.1-properties-of-base-and-extensions-in-rdf)
and looking forward to Pavlos's HW.
I was thinking that we should connect in the graph the property with its
Following this, I am also making a few recommendations on possible
vocabularies based on my previous HW:
* E4: type of period → do not make recommendation
* E10: type of transfer of custody
* legal responsibility → possible AAT term
[ownership](http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300055603)
Dear all,
This is for CRMact. Martin and I have reformulated the scope notes of
actP21 and actP22 to include contained places and time spans as the HW
dictated.
*Old scope note for actP21*
This property associates an instance of actE4 Event Template with the
instance of E53 Place which is
Dear all,
As part of the homework for issue 600
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-600-classproperty-labels-are-not-definitions)
on the role of labels of classes and properties, Erin and I drafted the
following text to be added at the end of the "Naming Conventions" section.
"The nominal
Dear all,
Issue 602
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-602-determine-the-interface-btw-crmsci-and-crminf)
is to consider whether class S5/I5 Inference Making should be in CRMsci
or CRMinf. Following some discussion in the HW group for this issue, the
proposal is that:
* I5/S5 Inference Making
I think this sounds right and consistent with the CRM introduction:
"the subproperty inherits the definition of all of the properties
declared for its superproperty without exceptions (strict inheritance),
in addition to having none, one or more properties of its own."
Thanasis
On
Just for easy future reference the white paper that Martin mentioned is
here:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/17171936.pdf
T.
___
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Is this relevant:
https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-407-ordinal-property-for-e55-type
It is a draft property in CRMsci:
"O28 is conceptually greater than (is conceptually less than)"
All the best,
Thanasis
On 06/10/2022 14:24, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote:
To add: Thinking of it again,
Dear all,
Athina and I are making some progress with version 2.0 of CRMsci and we
have identified some inconsistencies with property labels in the past
and present tenses. Typically, the labels are in the present tense and
the examples using the properties are in the past tense.
These are:
YES
On 01/11/2022 09:48, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
I propose the deletion of the following properties of CRMdig. The reason
that each should be deleted is listed beside it, but there are two
basic, principled reasons for the proposal:
1) the property can be modelled
YES
On 01/11/2022 09:53, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
I propose the deletion of the following classes of CRMdig. The reason
that each should be deleted is listed beside it, but there are two
basic, principled reasons for the proposal:
1) the class can be modelled using a
y
cross dataset query would require checking that the orders are in the
same direction, which is not ideal. Ideally the thesauri where these
types come from should also specify their order.
All the best,
Thanasis
Best,
Martin
On 10/28/2022 7:59 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
Is t
The section on Minimality outlines when new classes are declared and it
includes:
"It serves as a merging point of two CIDOC CRM class branches via
multiple IsA (e.g., E25 Human-Made Feature). When the branch
superclasses are used for multiple instantiation of an item, this item
is in the
Dear all,
Athina, Gerald, Martin and I have put together the homework for issue
612. Proposing the following text to be added between the Observation
section and the Inference making section at the CRMsci introduction:
Measuring positions
A specialisation of the class S4 Observation is the
Dear all,
In issue 388
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-388-reference-to-the-measurements-of-position-of-things)
we agreed the properties for position measurement. This issue 611
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-611-scope-notes-for-the-properties-of-position-measurement)
is about creating
Thank you for this analysis Martin. I would argue that this is for issue
610 - I have included it in the working document for that issue to discuss.
All the best,
Thanasis
On 22/11/2022 17:43, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear All,
"In the 54th CIDOC CRM & 47th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting,
Thank you both. I am assuming that Wolfgang's formulation is a shorter
equivalent to Christian-Emil's. I will add it to the draft.
Thanasis
On 08/12/2022 15:31, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:
I would write it like this:
O15(x,y) ⇒ S10(x)
O15(x,y) ⇒ E53(y)
O15(x,y) ∧ E18(x) ⇔ P156(x,y)
Dear all,
Just to remind you that there is some documentation for
E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation in the RDFS implementation guidelines
document:
https://cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/issue%20443%20-%20Implementing%20CIDOC%20CRM%20in%20RDF%20v1.1.pdf
in the section "Language of an
Indeed and the original questions raised were about the phrase in the
introduction "The association of the two events is based on their
temporal proximity, i.e. the triggering event ends when the triggered
event starts." I think the examples mentioned in the scope note indicate
a temporal
Dear all,
Happy New Year! Please consider the following for an e-vote. This are
the pending examples for CRMsci:
*Example for S15 Observable Entity:*
*
the flight of a male Bearded Vulture observed over Heraklion, Crete
in the morning of the 24^th of October 2020 (E5) (Claes, 2020)
Dear all,
Many thanks to those who voted for the CRMsci examples. Also, many
thanks to Wolfgang who has flagged several inaccuracies with the Titanic
examples, done deeper research and has provided further clarity.
Following his review, Athina and I thought it is appropriate to send
another
Dear all,
Many thanks to those of you who voted for the CRMsci examples in the
last e-vote which will be added to the document.
In the process of discussing these examples with several of you, there
was a strong view that the current label of S23 Position Measurement is
confusing. I
I think the meaning of a library flooding is that the books get wet. We
can model to a microscopic scale if the situation requires, but this is
not necessary for this example I think. In the case of the wildfire, it
could be both, i.e. both triggered and also part of it, but we cannot
assume
Dear George, all,
This is a lot of work, so thank you. Looking forward to discussing this,
I am sending a list of things to check as I browse through them:
* Some labels have underscores, others do not - I prefer without given
that we never use underscores in the main document
* I am not
Dear all,
I am forwarding an email from Steve to the list. For some reason his
original email did not make it through.
All the best,
Thanasis
-
Here is the proposed text for the frame of reference for Extension
Working Groups
Dear all,
Just following up with this discussion following Eleni's reminders for
HW. I think we have relaxed into the pattern of two hybrid meetings per
year, which is a reasonable compromise while there are still regular
participants who can cover their travel expenses.
From the discussion
Dear all, Martin,
Looking for things without certain types of features is indeed very
useful. NTP46 and NTP56 are meant to do exactly that (if you have the
time check
Dear all,
Has anyone done a review or mapping to/from the nomisma.org ontology?
Any thoughts to share?
All the best,
Thanasis
___
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
In version 7.2.3 (if I have the correct file in front of me) we have
already added the following:
"This property is a part of the fully developed path from E93 Presence
through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within
(contains) to E53 Place."
This is the path from E93
Dear all,
In addition to the HW being prepared for 657 to reformulate the scope
note for P32, I am proposing a new example to replace the fictitious one:
The endbanding of codex S.Ar.20 (E11) used general technique
blanket-stitch-with-core as primary component (E55). (Boudalis, 2023)
Works
Dear Martin, all,
I think there may be a way to cross-link in the document to specific
items of bulleted lists, i.e. if we decide to use "see also". It will be
quite a bit of work and likely prone to errors. I think we need to
brainstorm about this.
All the best,
Thanasis
On 11/07/2024
Sorry for responding to this late - these are examples I produced from
the St. Catherine's condition survey and, as always, happy to improve
them if needed. I can see that work is needed in FOL, but, Martin, can
you explain a bit more what you mean by inconsistencies in the examples?
And what
to discuss this, but
did not assign HW.
Could you make a graphic representation of the examples below, together
with the relevant super classes and super properties?
Cheers,
Martin
On 23/7/2024 1:41 π.μ., Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
Sorry for responding to this late - these are ex
Dear all,
There is a vote running about changing ICOM CIDOC's name. One option is
the current ICOM CIDOC and another is ICOM DOCUMENTATION. I am not sure
if SIG members had a chance to discuss this (and apologies if I missed
it), but CIDOC-CRM and CIDOC-CRM-SIG is part of the identity of the
Dear all,
Discussions about the website always take more time than there is
available. I like the idea of the top menu replacing all menus. One
things that forget every time I am on the website is that when I want
the last version of the CRM, I still click on "The Model", instead of
YES
On 11/03/2025 11:24, Eleni Tsouloucha via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
Do you agree with substituting the current phrasing concerning
transitivity and symmetry in CIDOC CRM v7.3 for the one proposed by
Martin, Wolfgang, and Christian-Emil?
*Namely: *
the bullet point under _Naming
Dear all,
The scope note of E34 Inscription says:
"The transcription of the text can be documented in a note by P3 has
note: E62 String."
Shouldn't we instead recommend the use of P190 has symbolic content
which is a sub-property of P3 anyway?
All the best,
Thanasis
Also complexity increases when you have an object E22 which then becomes
a feature E25 in another object, e.g. a plank of wood becomes part of a
laminated board for a manuscript. A new identifier would be necessary
after the part addition event for the resulting feature. People
(including me,
YES
Thanasis
On 19/01/2026 06:00, Eleni Tsouloucha via Crm-sig wrote:
dear all,
Please take a moment to review the suggested edits in the "About types"
part of the introduction to the CIDOC CRM. Vote yes or no to the
proposal (the edits are left as suggestions in the document). If you
have
YES
Thanasis
On 13/01/2026 13:25, Eleni Tsouloucha via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
Please reply by yes or no to the proposal formally made at the 61st SIG
meeting, namely to add the clause marked *in boldface* to the scope note
of E13 Attribute Assignment.
The reason that the group would not
YES
Thanasis
On 26/02/2026 13:34, Martin Dorr via Crm-sig wrote:
I vote YES
Martin
On 2/26/2026 2:23 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:
I vote yes
Best,
Christian-Emil
*Fra:* Crm-sig på vegne av Eleni
Dear all,
To avoid the complexity of querying for both directions in RDFS, during
the Linked Conservation Data project, all inverse properties were
automatically turned around. But I can see why this may be problematic
in some implementations.
All the best,
Thanasis
On 26/02/2026 09:33,
YES
On 29/04/2026 08:07, Eleni Tsouloucha via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
We are very pleased to have received an application from the *Hochschule
für Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur Leipzig *(HTWK Leipzig www.htwk-leipzig.de/en/htwk-leipzig/>), Germany, to join the CIDOC CRM
SIG as an
74 matches
Mail list logo
