What about: A a E33_Linguistic_Object ; P94i_was_created_by Creation . Creation a E65_Creation ; p2_has_type or p32_used_general_technique <aat:transcription> ; p16_used_specific_object B .
Rob On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 5:58 AM George Bruseker via Crm-sig < crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > Dear all, > > Just a general question to the crowd. > > Sometimes one has transcribed data of a very simple form. > > A is supposed to represent B and it has been copied by someone with the > intention of so doing. > > A is a transcription of B > > A [E33] is a transcription of B [E33] > > This could be modelled numerous ways using CIDOC CRM. If one is looking > for the most direct/binary way, I suppose that the only choice is "p130 > shows features of". If you wanted to capture the mode of relation then you > would use p130.1 has type and indicate 'transcription'. > > I notice, however, that we do have 'has translation' as a sub property of > P130 shows features of, as an apparently useful to the community binary > property specializing P130 to that specific scenario. > > Has anyone else done modelling of transcriptions before with the aim of > not recording the event but only the binary relation and if so, did you > come up with any interesting solutions? > > A property would be handy in case anyone has created and published a > specialization that could just be reused? > > Thanks for any insight! Maybe I miss an obvious trick from LRM? > > All the best, > > George > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
