Dear all, In the run up to the CRM SIG meeting later this month, I am passing on this HW.
This HW is basically to align the decisions to proceed with the proposal on listing compatible ontologies on the website and coming up with a practical proposal on how to integrate this into the information on the website. Here is the proposal: Following the decision of the SIG, we will list compatible ontologies, clearly marked as NOT made by the SIG and NOT harmonized ontologies but useful compatible efforts. For the reasons and rationales etc. consult the history of the issue. What needs doing is to decide how and where to list this info on the website in order to be clear what these are and what they are not. Therefore, I propose we should have a 'harmonized ontologies' and 'compatible ontologies' section. The existing 'compatible models' section which has the official CRM harmonized ontologies listed would be renamed to Harmonized Ontologies. Other than that, no change to this section. The new section would have the name 'Compatible Ontologies'. There we need at least two pages. The first page explains what a compatible ontology is. The second one has the list of compatible ontologies. For the first page, with the explanation of what compatible ontologies are and how to become one, we already have the text we produced so we can just use that as the website text. For the second page, regarding displaying the compatible ontologies I would suggest that we have a standard list view / item view approach. So we would have a list view that would show in a table all compatible ontologies and their top level information. And then when you click on a particular ontology, you go to an item view. The item view will display the rest of the metadata for that entry. Please note that this differs significantly from the 'harmonized ontologies section. When you click on the compatible ontology you do not go to a new website maintained by the SIG. You just go to an item view with more metadata and links to the ontology providers pages. We don't want or need to maintain a whole website for them, these are not our ontologies just a reference list of compatible ontologies. When you click on the item view you would see the rest of the information we have stored about this ontology. With regards to which of the main menus this goes in, I think this needs to be aligned with the overall website organization homework. This is the metadata document that we already agreed: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1etOTY9bKIT4IQRJg5csQ1_ho6Rk53djwDVFYu7bPftw/edit?gid=1752254642#gid=1752254642 On the second tab, I transposed that into a table view. I marked things in yellow which might be nice to display in the list view (to see at a glance) and in orange what would be additional info that probably is better to see in the item view. Also as I work on other homework, I am wondering if we should enter a registration date for the information and set an automatic checkin of some number of years to see if the info is still valid. This comes to me from looking at other data on the site which is very out of date, which is hard to get on top of. There is a subissue to this issue of how to handled ontologies that are no longer maintained. Quoth Eleni "I'm alright with what you're proposing. I'm only unclear with how to treat PRESSoo and CRMba. They are by default harmonized with 5.0.4, but they are no longer harmonized. We said we would link harmonized models to the CIDOC and model versions. But I don't know what this means in terms of listing them." Quoth Pavlos "I think the proposal is good. Imo, it is important NOT to confuse the categories (ontologies maintained by us vs. ontologies maintained by others). Regarding PRESSoo and CRMba: they both have stable versions aligned with some stable version of the base model. So, I would consider them harmonized even if there is no WG working on them. No?" I think we could keep discussing this in person at the next SIG? Maybe it needs its own issue or a particular decision from the involved parties. Best, George On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 6:00 AM Eleni Tsouloucha <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > here's a reminder for issue 682 > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-682-list-externally-maintained-crm-compatible-extensions-on-new-section-of-crm-site>. > For the moment, there is not a lot of wordsmithing involved, the proposal > was accepted, but what it requires is a proposal on how to share this info > on the site, and how to incorporate it in the new release of the site. So > it ties in with issue 697 > <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-697-cidoc-crm-website-reorganized>. > > Do you want to go over it at some point this week? > Best, > > -- > Eleni Tsouloucha > Philologist - MA Linguistics & Language Technologies > Center for Cultural Informatics > Information Systems Laboratory - Institute of Computer Science > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) > > Address: N. Plastira 100, GR-70013 Heraklion, Grece > email: [email protected], [email protected] > Tel: +30 2810391488 >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
