Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage

[martin]

On 20/2/2016 8:44 μμ, Øyvind Eide wrote:

Dear Martin and Mika,

This is also in line with how we can talk about models in the mind as opposed 
to expressed (mediated) models. In digital humanities we tends to focus on 
models as things. Another approach is cognitive studies of models in the mind, 
which is, as said, much less tangible and much less known (and knowable) as to 
how they are instantiated. See, e.g., Nersessian, Nancy J. Creating Scientific 
Concepts.  Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2008.
Interesting!! I can also recommend 
http://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Think-Conceptual-Complexities-ebook/dp/B00AAL62RO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1455995047&sr=8-1&keywords=fauconnier+the+way+we+think


Best,

Martin


Regards,

Øyvind

20. feb. 2016 kl. 19:20 skrev martin :


Dear Mika,

I support your separation of the world of things and the world of minds. I 
think it is crucial to understand this
relationship, which is highly complex. See also "Embodiment" by Wolfgang 
Tschacher et al. who provides ample
evidence of a much tighter interaction than classical AI and philosophy had 
assumed.
We develop the CRM strictly on an empirical-scientific base. The idea being, 
that the world of minds
is accessible to our interpretation through the world of things, as long as we 
do not resort to telepathy.
This can be utterances, bodily expressions, activities that allow us to infer 
motivations or inconsistencies
with uttered convictions etc. , nowadays even "liedetectors" or brain 
activation images.
The latter fall under the current scope of the CRM, if relevant groups document 
in data structures such terms.

It is much more difficult to talk about clearly identifiable entities for the 
world of the mind, and therefore
rarely appear as datastructures useful to integrate knowledge on. For instance, 
Stephen Hennicke has
discussed recently in his PhD the concept of actual "will" to pursue a plan in contrast 
to "expressions of will".
Recently, it appears to me more and more important to understand the world of 
the mind not just as isolated
individuals caught in their own brains, but as members of a social group which 
exchange their inner experiences and
influence each other by their attitudes up to the degree of global changes of 
behavior.

In addition, social-historical research has a strong focus on collective 
behavior, which can only be described
in statistical terms, formal or informal. Whereas the KR formalism allows to 
describe facts feeding statistics,
the statistics and its models are mathematically different. Therefore the CRM 
simply cannot deal with them technically.

As a remark, I'd argue that "Subject" in both senses, the experiencing human or 
the topic of an information object,
is not a class, but must be modelled as relationship?

Best,

Martin

On 20/2/2016 3:39 πμ, Mika Nyman wrote:

Dear all,

Some pieces of information and comments:

1. For information on how to apply CIDOC CRM or FRBRoo to Intangible Cultural 
Heritage, this is the right list.

CIDOC has also a Working Group for Intangible Cultural Heritage. If someone has 
a broader interest in how to document ICH, that can be discussed on the mailing 
list of that group. The CIDOC ICH WG aims to develop a vocabulary, standards 
and guidlines for documentation of ICH. The chair of the WG is Dr. Manvi Seth 
from the National Museum Institute, New Delhi, sharma.ma...@gmail.com. If you 
want to be added to the mailing list of the WG, please send me a note to 
mika.ny...@synapse-computing.com and I will send you an invitation to join the 
list. I have myself only a minor role in the group, but I administer the 
mailing list.

2. A while ago (in 2012) I participated in a project to create a conceptual 
model for archives in Finland. My specific interest was to connect that model 
to the CIDOC CRM and the FRBRoo. The project was based on the conviction, that 
the foundation for a conceptual model for archives is the mandate, discourse 
and practices of archives and the archives community. In other words, the 
starting point was not existing metadata schemata and how to map those to other 
schemata, but rather what archivists think and do and how they see their 
professional roles within their national archival tradition compared to the 
archival traditions in other countries. In parallel, there were separate 
processes to create cataloguing rules, to create a data model for a new 
information system and to link archival data to the Finna service, which is a 
national version of Europeana.

In one of the models that were produced in that project, the archival classes 
were distributed among five fields:

Temporal Entities
Extents (in space and time)
Three types of Persistent Items:
- Actors
- Things
- Conceptual Objects

These five fields are derived from the CIDOC CRM. A disturbing feature was that 
some classes such as Activity and Subject crossed the border of fields. In the 
draft model they belong in some way to Temporal Entities, in another way 

Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin and Mika,

This is also in line with how we can talk about models in the mind as opposed 
to expressed (mediated) models. In digital humanities we tends to focus on 
models as things. Another approach is cognitive studies of models in the mind, 
which is, as said, much less tangible and much less known (and knowable) as to 
how they are instantiated. See, e.g., Nersessian, Nancy J. Creating Scientific 
Concepts.  Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2008.

Regards,

Øyvind

20. feb. 2016 kl. 19:20 skrev martin :

> Dear Mika,
> 
> I support your separation of the world of things and the world of minds. I 
> think it is crucial to understand this
> relationship, which is highly complex. See also "Embodiment" by Wolfgang 
> Tschacher et al. who provides ample
> evidence of a much tighter interaction than classical AI and philosophy had 
> assumed.
> We develop the CRM strictly on an empirical-scientific base. The idea being, 
> that the world of minds
> is accessible to our interpretation through the world of things, as long as 
> we do not resort to telepathy.
> This can be utterances, bodily expressions, activities that allow us to infer 
> motivations or inconsistencies
> with uttered convictions etc. , nowadays even "liedetectors" or brain 
> activation images.
> The latter fall under the current scope of the CRM, if relevant groups 
> document in data structures such terms.
> 
> It is much more difficult to talk about clearly identifiable entities for the 
> world of the mind, and therefore
> rarely appear as datastructures useful to integrate knowledge on. For 
> instance, Stephen Hennicke has
> discussed recently in his PhD the concept of actual "will" to pursue a plan 
> in contrast to "expressions of will".
> Recently, it appears to me more and more important to understand the world of 
> the mind not just as isolated
> individuals caught in their own brains, but as members of a social group 
> which exchange their inner experiences and
> influence each other by their attitudes up to the degree of global changes of 
> behavior.
> 
> In addition, social-historical research has a strong focus on collective 
> behavior, which can only be described
> in statistical terms, formal or informal. Whereas the KR formalism allows to 
> describe facts feeding statistics,
> the statistics and its models are mathematically different. Therefore the CRM 
> simply cannot deal with them technically.
> 
> As a remark, I'd argue that "Subject" in both senses, the experiencing human 
> or the topic of an information object,
> is not a class, but must be modelled as relationship?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 20/2/2016 3:39 πμ, Mika Nyman wrote:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Some pieces of information and comments:
>> 
>> 1. For information on how to apply CIDOC CRM or FRBRoo to Intangible 
>> Cultural Heritage, this is the right list.
>> 
>> CIDOC has also a Working Group for Intangible Cultural Heritage. If someone 
>> has a broader interest in how to document ICH, that can be discussed on the 
>> mailing list of that group. The CIDOC ICH WG aims to develop a vocabulary, 
>> standards and guidlines for documentation of ICH. The chair of the WG is Dr. 
>> Manvi Seth from the National Museum Institute, New Delhi, 
>> sharma.ma...@gmail.com. If you want to be added to the mailing list of the 
>> WG, please send me a note to mika.ny...@synapse-computing.com and I will 
>> send you an invitation to join the list. I have myself only a minor role in 
>> the group, but I administer the mailing list.
>> 
>> 2. A while ago (in 2012) I participated in a project to create a conceptual 
>> model for archives in Finland. My specific interest was to connect that 
>> model to the CIDOC CRM and the FRBRoo. The project was based on the 
>> conviction, that the foundation for a conceptual model for archives is the 
>> mandate, discourse and practices of archives and the archives community. In 
>> other words, the starting point was not existing metadata schemata and how 
>> to map those to other schemata, but rather what archivists think and do and 
>> how they see their professional roles within their national archival 
>> tradition compared to the archival traditions in other countries. In 
>> parallel, there were separate processes to create cataloguing rules, to 
>> create a data model for a new information system and to link archival data 
>> to the Finna service, which is a national version of Europeana.
>> 
>> In one of the models that were produced in that project, the archival 
>> classes were distributed among five fields:
>> 
>> Temporal Entities
>> Extents (in space and time)
>> Three types of Persistent Items:
>> - Actors
>> - Things
>> - Conceptual Objects
>> 
>> These five fields are derived from the CIDOC CRM. A disturbing feature was 
>> that some classes such as Activity and Subject crossed the border of fields. 
>> In the draft model they belong in some way to Temporal Entities, in another 
>> way to Conceptual Objects.

Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage

[martin]

Dear Mika,

I support your separation of the world of things and the world of minds. 
I think it is crucial to understand this
relationship, which is highly complex. See also "Embodiment" by Wolfgang 
Tschacher et al. who provides ample
evidence of a much tighter interaction than classical AI and philosophy 
had assumed.
We develop the CRM strictly on an empirical-scientific base. The idea 
being, that the world of minds
is accessible to our interpretation through the world of things, as long 
as we do not resort to telepathy.
This can be utterances, bodily expressions, activities that allow us to 
infer motivations or inconsistencies
with uttered convictions etc. , nowadays even "liedetectors" or brain 
activation images.
The latter fall under the current scope of the CRM, if relevant groups 
document in data structures such terms.


It is much more difficult to talk about clearly identifiable entities 
for the world of the mind, and therefore
rarely appear as datastructures useful to integrate knowledge on. For 
instance, Stephen Hennicke has
discussed recently in his PhD the concept of actual "will" to pursue a 
plan in contrast to "expressions of will".
Recently, it appears to me more and more important to understand the 
world of the mind not just as isolated
individuals caught in their own brains, but as members of a social group 
which exchange their inner experiences and
influence each other by their attitudes up to the degree of global 
changes of behavior.


In addition, social-historical research has a strong focus on collective 
behavior, which can only be described
in statistical terms, formal or informal. Whereas the KR formalism 
allows to describe facts feeding statistics,
the statistics and its models are mathematically different. Therefore 
the CRM simply cannot deal with them technically.


As a remark, I'd argue that "Subject" in both senses, the experiencing 
human or the topic of an information object,

is not a class, but must be modelled as relationship?

Best,

Martin

On 20/2/2016 3:39 πμ, Mika Nyman wrote:


Dear all,

Some pieces of information and comments:

1. For information on how to apply CIDOC CRM or FRBRoo to Intangible 
Cultural Heritage, this is the right list.


CIDOC has also a Working Group for Intangible Cultural Heritage. If 
someone has a broader interest in how to document ICH, that can be 
discussed on the mailing list of that group. The CIDOC ICH WG aims to 
develop a vocabulary, standards and guidlines for documentation of 
ICH. The chair of the WG is Dr. Manvi Seth from the National Museum 
Institute, New Delhi, sharma.ma...@gmail.com. If you want to be added 
to the mailing list of the WG, please send me a note to 
mika.ny...@synapse-computing.com and I will send you an invitation to 
join the list. I have myself only a minor role in the group, but I 
administer the mailing list.


2. A while ago (in 2012) I participated in a project to create a 
conceptual model for archives in Finland. My specific interest was to 
connect that model to the CIDOC CRM and the FRBRoo. The project was 
based on the conviction, that the foundation for a conceptual model 
for archives is the mandate, discourse and practices of archives and 
the archives community. In other words, the starting point was not 
existing metadata schemata and how to map those to other schemata, but 
rather what archivists think and do and how they see their 
professional roles within their national archival tradition compared 
to the archival traditions in other countries. In parallel, there were 
separate processes to create cataloguing rules, to create a data model 
for a new information system and to link archival data to the Finna 
service, which is a national version of Europeana.


In one of the models that were produced in that project, the archival 
classes were distributed among five fields:


Temporal Entities
Extents (in space and time)
Three types of Persistent Items:
- Actors
- Things
- Conceptual Objects

These five fields are derived from the CIDOC CRM. A disturbing feature 
was that some classes such as Activity and Subject crossed the border 
of fields. In the draft model they belong in some way to Temporal 
Entities, in another way to Conceptual Objects. After the conclusion 
of the project I wanted to look deeper into this. To get more clarity 
to the duality of classes like Activity and Subject I have been 
working on a domain independent Metamodel that can be applied to CIDOC 
CRM, FBRBoo and archival models.


Two terms I use in the Metamodel are the World of Things and the World 
of Minds. An example: In the last days there has been student protests 
in Delhi and all over India caused by the arrest of a student leader, 
Kanhaiya Kumar from the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Those 
demonstrations can be documented on two levels: in the World of Things 
as external activities but also in the World of Minds in the 
subjective field(s). The World of Things and the World of 

Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage

[martin]

Dear Franco,

This rises two important methodological questions (also supporting 
Christian-Emils response) :


On 19/2/2016 3:50 μμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote:

The correct definition mentioned by Christian-Emile refers to what I would call 
“stand-alone” intangible heritage.

But, there is always an intangible component in tangible heritage, for example 
what turns a stone into heritage.
In the CRM, as a principle, we reject this inversion of agency or 
causality, which is common in the scholarly discourse: The stone does 
nothing, it does not change. Therefore it cannot turn into heritage. 
Only people can start regarding it as heritage. People regarding it as 
heritage will be supported by evidence about how people treat the stone 
or refer to the stone.  When the stone becomes (passively) heritage, 
there must be human activities which are the cause, including human 
products such as texts, paintings etc. All this can be quite well 
documented in the CRM. If the stone were the cause, different cultures 
couldn't have different perceptions about the stone. So, I am not sure 
what else we would like to put into a formal ontology? If we have 
evidence that the stone itself changes, we will model it.

(We could discuss Buddha's footprints next week?).

This is hard to document together with the artifacts. One may have the (perhaps 
wrong) impression that the CRM focuses on the tangible details rather than on 
the equally important intangible ones.
The CRM focusses on what we find in documentation structures. 
Surprisingly, museum databases do not much analyze in formal fields such 
"intangibles". I rember a workshop on history of art in Rome. Asking 
about their concept of "work", participants clearly stated to me that 
they do not want to discuss such a concept. In the end, librarians did, 
and then we modelled it. There has never been any other judgement of 
focus in the CRM than data structures maintained by relevant 
communities, and the ability to assign an intersubjective identity to 
the entities we model, because otherwise they would not integrate with 
other data.


Of course, if relevant communities do not communicate with us , we miss 
relevant foci ;-)


best,

martin


Franco

Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy




Il giorno 19 feb 2016, alle ore 14:29, Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
 ha scritto:

Intangible cultural heritage has partly become a buzz-word. However, the term is ok. 
Documentation of intangible cultural heritage has indeed very long traditions. This is 
what scholars in field linguistics, philology, onomasiology  etnogragraphy/etnology, 
social anthropologists  etc etc have been doing for centuries. It is nothing new here. On 
should remember that an ontology is used to describe the way we can conceptualise our 
understanding of the "intangible" in order to document it.

The UNESCO declaration is also quite clear, see below.  In the CRM universe 
FRBRoo is the most suitable ontology. Patrick Le Boeuf has given several 
presentations on this.

Chr-Emil

1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, 
expressions,
knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural 
spaces associated
therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize 
as part of their
cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from 
generation to generation,
is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their 
environment, their
interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of 
identity and
continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. 
For the
purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such 
intangible cultural
heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, 
as well as with
the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, 
and of
sustainable development.

2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is 
manifested inter
alia in the following domains:
(a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the 
intangible
cultural heritage;
(b) performing arts;
(c) social practices, rituals and festive events;
(d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe;
(e) traditional craftsmanship.




-Original Message-
From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:59 PM
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage

Dear Phil,

"Intangible heritage" is a bit a buzzword. I suggest to identify different
senses:

A) A particular activity, in particular performances. FRBRoo contains a model
for that, but that can be refined. My colleague George Bruseker has worked
on ome issues, may be oth

Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

Dear all,
It is a common understanding that languages and placenames represents 
intangible cultural heritage as well as folk music fairytales or novels and 
other cultural phenomena. 

Franco raised a question about what makes an artifact a piece of cultural 
heritage. In general to decide what is and what is not cultural heritage be it 
tangible or intangible is a highly subjective classification. In 18th century 
British archaeology all medieval stuff on top of Roman ruins was considered 
garbage and not pieces of cultural heritage. 

Our task as documentation ontologist (if I may) is not to decide what is 
cultural heritage and what is trash. The focus is on how to organize/model the 
information and the activities.
C-E


>-Original Message-
>From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Nicola
>Carboni
>Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 3:04 PM
>To: Carlisle, Philip; crm-sig (Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr)
>Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage
>
>Dear Phil,
>
>
>That’s depends on what you exactly mean with intangible heritage. Seems to
>me the majority of the records or documentation in such field is related to
>events and the characterisation of certain figure as types or member of a
>group with a certain role for a certain moment in time.
>
>
>The documentation standards developed in such field [1] [2] clearly shows
>that this is the main focus of this type of descriptions, and even checking the
>UNESCO’s classification seems to me that we are always talking about
>different types of performative events.
>
>
>Several aspects of the problem are definitively taken into account by CRM and
>for the performative description some people are already tackling them
>(G.Bruseker for example), therefore seems to me that CRM is the right way to
>go.
>
>
>Moreover there seems to be no other ontology that tackle the complexity of
>so-called intangible phenomena.
>
>
>Best,
>
>
>Nicola
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[1] Viudez, M.C., 2010. Metodologia de recerca etnològica. Generalitat de
>Catalunya Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament de Cultura i Mitjans de
>Cominicació.
>[2] SCHEDA BDI Beni demoetnoantropologici immateriali
>http://paci.iccd.beniculturali.it/paciSito/images/stories/PDF/normativa.pdf
>
>--
>Nicola Carboni
>CNRS - UMR 3495 MAP
>nicola.carb...@map.cnrs.fr
>+33 (0)667243519
>
>
>
>On 19 February 2016 at 11:57:40, Carlisle, Philip
>(philip.carli...@historicengland.org.uk) wrote:
>
>
>
>   Hi all,
>
>   I’m resending this as it didn’t appear to get through.
>
>
>
>
>
>   As you may know the Arches Project has been using the CRM as the
>backbone for a cultural heritage inventory system. This is working well and is
>being implemented by many projects.
>
>
>
>   One such project now wants to use Arches to record intangible
>heritage and so needs to create resource graphs, based on an ontology, in
>order to do this.
>
>
>
>   Can the CRM be used to represent the intangible heritage? If not does
>anyone know of an ontology that can?
>
>
>
>   Phil
>
>
>
>   Phil Carlisle
>
>   Data Standards Supervisor
>
>   Data Standards Unit, Listing Group
>
>   Historic England
>
>   The Engine House
>
>   Fire Fly Avenue
>
>   Swindon
>
>   SN2 2EH
>
>   Tel: +44 (0)1793 414824
>
>
>
>   http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/
>
>
>   http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   We are the public body that looks after England's historic environment.
>We champion historic places, helping people to understand, value and care for
>them, now and for the future.
>   Sign up to our enewsletter to keep up to date with our latest news,
>advice and listings.
>
>   HistoricEngland.org.uk   Twitter: @HistoricEngland
>
>   This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
>personal views which are not the views of Historic England unless specifically
>stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and
>notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in
>any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic England may
>become publicly available.
>
>
>
>
>   ___
>   Crm-sig mailing list
>   Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>   http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>

Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage

[Mika Nyman]

Dear all,

Some pieces of information and comments:

1. For information on how to apply CIDOC CRM or FRBRoo to Intangible 
Cultural Heritage, this is the right list.


CIDOC has also a Working Group for Intangible Cultural Heritage. If 
someone has a broader interest in how to document ICH, that can be 
discussed on the mailing list of that group. The CIDOC ICH WG aims to 
develop a vocabulary, standards and guidlines for documentation of ICH. 
The chair of the WG is Dr. Manvi Seth from the National Museum 
Institute, New Delhi, sharma.ma...@gmail.com. If you want to be added to 
the mailing list of the WG, please send me a note to 
mika.ny...@synapse-computing.com and I will send you an invitation to 
join the list. I have myself only a minor role in the group, but I 
administer the mailing list.


2. A while ago (in 2012) I participated in a project to create a 
conceptual model for archives in Finland. My specific interest was to 
connect that model to the CIDOC CRM and the FRBRoo. The project was 
based on the conviction, that the foundation for a conceptual model for 
archives is the mandate, discourse and practices of archives and the 
archives community. In other words, the starting point was not existing 
metadata schemata and how to map those to other schemata, but rather 
what archivists think and do and how they see their professional roles 
within their national archival tradition compared to the archival 
traditions in other countries. In parallel, there were separate 
processes to create cataloguing rules, to create a data model for a new 
information system and to link archival data to the Finna service, which 
is a national version of Europeana.


In one of the models that were produced in that project, the archival 
classes were distributed among five fields:


Temporal Entities
Extents (in space and time)
Three types of Persistent Items:
- Actors
- Things
- Conceptual Objects

These five fields are derived from the CIDOC CRM. A disturbing feature 
was that some classes such as Activity and Subject crossed the border of 
fields. In the draft model they belong in some way to Temporal Entities, 
in another way to Conceptual Objects. After the conclusion of the 
project I wanted to look deeper into this. To get more clarity to the 
duality of classes like Activity and Subject I have been working on a 
domain independent Metamodel that can be applied to CIDOC CRM, FBRBoo 
and archival models.


Two terms I use in the Metamodel are the World of Things and the World 
of Minds. An example: In the last days there has been student protests 
in Delhi and all over India caused by the arrest of a student leader, 
Kanhaiya Kumar from the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Those 
demonstrations can be documented on two levels: in the World of Things 
as external activities but also in the World of Minds in the subjective 
field(s). The World of Things and the World of Minds form separate 
contexts. Different structures apply to each of them. Each must be 
approached through a different set of questions. A question like "What 
did NN really mean" is related to the World of Minds. "Who were the 
lawyers that physically assaulted and mishanled KK in the Patiala House 
Court" is related to the World of Things. The Internal Experience of 
Kanhaiya Kumar being kicked and beaten by enraged lawyers is different 
from the External Experience that can be captured by journalists' 
cameras, although Internal and External Experiences are interrelated. 
One distinction that is of relevance in the mental sphere is the 
distinction between Identification and Predication. Both are fundamental 
mental capabilities. A key interest in developing the Metamodel has been 
how to bridge statements and stories. Semantic web models and systems 
are statement oriented. Statements are based on Identification and 
Predication. They express our understanding of the world, but this 
understanding is, additionally, used in temporally sequenced discourses 
and narratives.


My attempt has not been to present or describe the Metamodel here. I'm 
trying to formulate these thoughts in an article for the Iranian 
Farhang-e muse (Culture and Museum) journal. We (meaning especially some 
museum professionals in Iran) are also trying organize an international 
workshop in Teheran, where these questions could be discussed in depth. 
This workshop could be hosted by the University of Art in Teheran. If 
you have the interest and opportunity to participate in the workshop 
individually or through your project or organization, please let me 
know. There has also been a suggestion to arrange a Workshop in Teheran 
specifically on the theme of ICH. These two initiatives could be merged.



These comments fall outside of the scope of refining the CICOC CRM model 
and its extensions. I apologize if they also fall outside of the scope 
of the CIDOC CRM mailing list.


Best regards!
Mika


~