Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for issue 384 (template for family models)

YES From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig Reply to: "thana...@softicon.co.uk" Date: Friday, 18. June 2021 at 12:05 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] E-vote for issue 384 (template for family models) Dear all, This issue is about agreeing a template based on which the

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 and voted to

Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo -embedding

Dear All, thanks for your thoughts on the matter. I believe Achille is right in the sense that there will not be an embedding just in an A3 but as Martins example shows an A3 may be included in an embedding. So I would opt for Christian Emils suggestion to lift the range of AP19 is embedding

Re: [Crm-sig] Call for e-vote issue 517

YES From: Crm-sig on behalf of Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig Reply to: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Date: Thursday, 3. March 2022 at 20:24 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] Call for e-vote issue 517 Dear all, As agreed in the 52nd meeting the background material and the suggested (small)

Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for scope note part of issue 294 (CRMarchaeo)

YES Best, Gerald From: Crm-sig on behalf of Martin Doerr via Crm-sig Reply to: Martin Doerr Date: Monday, 21. March 2022 at 12:44 To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for scope note part of issue 294 (CRMarchaeo) TES! Martin On 3/21/2022 1:24 PM, Christian-Emil Smith

Re: [Crm-sig] E-VOTE: LRMoo F31 Performance and properties

YES, Best, Gerald From: Crm-sig on behalf of Pat Riva via Crm-sig Reply to: Pat Riva Date: Sunday, 30. July 2023 at 03:58 To: CRM-SIG Subject: [Crm-sig] E-VOTE: LRMoo F31 Performance and properties Hello all, During the SIG meeting #56 in May 2023 in Heraklion, the LRMoo WG presented a

[Crm-sig] ISSUE Implementing .2 Properties in RDF

Dear all, we discussed CRMarchaeo and are going to make a proposel for a new version in the next CRM-SIG. In the discussion we encountered the issue of not having yet a policy/strategy for implementing .2 properties which means properties related to properties. We have one of them in

Re: [Crm-sig] Belief Adoption example, HW issue 510

Dear all, We tried to put Martins statements in RDF using named graphs and RDF star and made a visualization: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10jJuHf5PQB5cAmeSmzw7erw7bNrE46sO/edit?usp=sharing=109550868763234480916=true=true If you are interested in the RDFs you find different versions in

Re: [Crm-sig] Illustrating Presence, Issue 523

Dear Martin and all, I like the idea to illustrate the Presence construct with the first part of the travel of Humboldt to Venezuela and would be happy to help with graphics. As I am not the best designer, first I would try to represent your suggested moves and presences in RDF with coordinates

Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for CRMtex 2.0

YES And thank you to all of you, that is most relevant for our linguistic and historic projects! Von: Crm-sig im Auftrag von Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig Antworten an: Pavlos Fafalios Datum: Dienstag, 25. April 2023 um 12:30 An: crm-sig Betreff: [Crm-sig] E-vote for CRMtex 2.0 Dear all, We

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE Implementing .2 Properties in RDF

plementing this, such as using named graphs, or the standard RDF reification method (i.e. using rdf:subject, rdf:object, etc.), or RDF-start (I think). Please correct me if I have misunderstood something! Best regards, Pavlos On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 3:38 PM Hiebel, Gerald via Crm-sig mail