Martin The problem probably lies in the word “Collection”! Everyone reads that and thinks that the defining characteristic is the act of collecting rather than the true differentiator which is the curation.
Perhaps changing the name to “E78 Curated Set” would solve the problem. Nobody would know what it meant and so would read the scope note!!!! TTFN SdS Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail <mailto:ste...@paveprime.com> ste...@paveprime.com LinkedIn Profile <http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads> http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin Sent: 29 November 2014 19:07 To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] A hoard as crm:E78_Collection ? Continuing: I don't know, why E78 Collection attracts so much attention. The scope note of E19 Physical Object says: "The class also includes all aggregates of objects made for functional purposes of whatever kind, independent of physical coherence, such as a set of chessmen. Typically, instances of E19 Physical Object can be moved (if not too heavy)." The CRM is not a terminological system to classify things. It is made to provide relevant properties. We should only use a more specific class, if we expect the respective additional properties to be relevant for querying. To say that an E19 "has type: Hoard" should be enough. Only if we want to specify a curator and an E87 Curation Activity with a curation plan, using E78 Collection would be adequate. The less classes we use, the more effective the queries. Best, Martin On 29/11/2014 2:45 μμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: In the case a curator in a museum buries his collection, a hoard may be considered as as a collection. The collection class is intended for museum collections, see the examples in the scope note. C-E -----Original Message----- From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Dan Matei Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2014 1:30 PM To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: [Crm-sig] A hoard as crm:E78_Collection ? Friends I have to say that a particular coin is a member of a particular hoard. I googled to see how others are dealing with that, but... I'm tempted to: <coin> <crm:P46i_forms_part_of> <hoard> <hoard> <rdf:type> <crm:E78_Collection> abusing a bit the E78 scope note: "This class comprises aggregations of instances of E18 Physical Thing that are assembled and maintained (“curated” and “preserved,” in museological terminology) by one or more instances of E39 Actor over time for a specific purpose and audience, and according to a particular collection development plan." The "... according to a particular collection development plan." troubles me. Can we say that the guy burying a hoard had a "collection development plan" ? There is a better practice for modelling that ? Dan PS. Not to mention that I would like to associate the discovery event with the hoard, not with the coin. _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | | Center for Cultural Informatics | Information Systems Laboratory | Institute of Computer Science | Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | | N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | | Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | --------------------------------------------------------------
