Hi George Thanks for this.
The document that was homework for Martin and I on the new framework has been delayed (although nearly complete) and is now not on the agenda for the next meeting. I think there are different ways to approach the administration of this and it would be good to talk about this as a group. But I think that people need to see the final draft proposal first, which I hope will be available soon. Cheers, Dominic On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 at 09:41, George Bruseker via Crm-sig < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
