Dear Dominic, Thanks for this. As I was working on preparing this issue, I reread the minutes and the issue documentation since I had been assigned the coordination of the various HWs. I didn't find any assignments for you or Martin listed there ( https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-682-list-externally-maintained-crm-compatible-extensions-on-new-section-of-crm-site) or I definitely would have reached out to ask about it.
Nevertheless, good to hear you have been working on something. Since the text and approach were already agreed by a vote at the SIG, I guess you are doing the mentioned 'tweaking' of the criteria doc? Would you like to share what you have in a google doc or equivalent with everyone else and we can deal with it with the rest of the issue next week? I will try to attach a word doc that has the agreed text voted on by the SIG as a recall for everyone. Best, George > 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 >> >
60SIG_682 (1).docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
