Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

[Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig]

Isn't "diminished" just a label, rather than a value statement? I don't
think something needs to be complete for a part to be removed (I can break
a twig off the branch, which I previously broke off the tree). I read it as
"was made smaller by" in that some part was removed.
I agree that Part Removal is not always a Production -- the same part could
be added and removed several times, and clearly not all of them are
Productions. [Personally, I would never say it was a Production, but that a
Production might have a Part Removal as a part of it]

Here's a related question... Can an E78 Curated Holding have a Physical
Feature as part of it? Conceptually, yes ... but E78 is a physical
aggregate, not a conceptual thing. Does the collections system of Arches
National Park have records for the rock formations? Surely it must. And if
the National Park boundaries were changed, then the arched rock formations
that no longer fell within the protected area would have to be removed from
the E78. So I think I even retract "you can't remove features" given the
physicality of E78.

Rob


On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:05 PM Athanasios Velios 
wrote:

> Yes this is a logical position. I guess the way I have been reading it
> is that the object that is diminished was indeed intentionally made by a
> human and therefore it *can* be diminished. If it is any thing then who
> judges if it is complete and has been diminished? There is no agency on
> its original "production".
>
> The reason we have E18 as range is because the removed item's identity
> is not that of a human made object. I.e. Part removal is not a
> Production which I think is the reason the following sentence is in the
> scope note:
>
> "In cases where the part removed has no discernible identity prior to
> its removal but does have an identity subsequent to its removal, the
> activity should be modelled as both an instance of E80 Part Removal and
> E12 Production."
>
> hence the removed part is pushed up to E18.
>
> T.
>
>
> On 29/11/2021 16:36, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> >
> > Good spotting! I agree with Thanasis that there is any issue, but I
> > think that the range is wrong for P112, which I would argue should also
> > be E18.
> >
> > For example, I find a tree and break off a branch. The tree is not a
> > Human-Made Thing, it's an E20 Biological Object. Or I break a piece of
> > obsidian (I would argue an E19) into two. Or if the obsidian is part of
> > a lava flow, then it would be a physical feature ... and thus we end up
> > at E18 as the common ancestor.
> >
> > I think that E18 remains correct for P113, given the described use of
> > removal of a part from an E78 Curated Holding. If I remove a meteorite
> > fragment from the collection of a natural history museum, the meteorite
> > is (again, I would argue) an E19. Now ... can it ever be an E18 Physical
> > Thing but not an E19 Physical Object? It can't be a Feature, as they
> > cannot be removed, ruling out E26 and below. However E78 is an E24
> > Physical Human-Made Thing, but not an E19 Physical Object.  If we use
> > E78 to model sub-collections, and sub-collections can be removed from
> > their parent, then yes, here is a case where we need E18.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
> > mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
> >
> > Hm, yes, this is confusing. We might need a new issue to update the
> > scope note. I think the correct class is E24 as it seems that E80
> Part
> > Removal does not cover cases such as cutting a stalactite off in a
> cave.
> >
> > Thanasis
> >
> > On 29/11/2021 15:41, Erin Canning via Crm-sig wrote:
> >  > Hello,
> >  >
> >  > I am hoping you might be able to help me with a small confusion -
> >  >
> >  > The scope note for E80_Part_Removal
> >  >  > >
> states
> >  > that "This class comprises the activities that result in an
> > instance of
> >  > E18 Physical Thing being decreased by the removal of a part."
> > This reads
> >  > to me as if the relationship would then go: E80 > P112_diminished
> >  > E18,
> >  > as P112 creates the connection to the thing being diminished
> (having
> >  > something removed from it), as opposed to P113_removed, which is
> > for the
> >  > connection to the thing that was removed.
> >  > However, the range of P112 is E24, not E18, and the scope note for
> >  > P112_diminished
> >  >  >  >> reads
> >  > "This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made
> Thing
> >  > that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal."
> >  > Meanwhile, the range of P113_removed
> >  > 

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Yes this is a logical position. I guess the way I have been reading it 
is that the object that is diminished was indeed intentionally made by a 
human and therefore it *can* be diminished. If it is any thing then who 
judges if it is complete and has been diminished? There is no agency on 
its original "production".


The reason we have E18 as range is because the removed item's identity 
is not that of a human made object. I.e. Part removal is not a 
Production which I think is the reason the following sentence is in the 
scope note:


"In cases where the part removed has no discernible identity prior to 
its removal but does have an identity subsequent to its removal, the 
activity should be modelled as both an instance of E80 Part Removal and 
E12 Production."


hence the removed part is pushed up to E18.

T.


On 29/11/2021 16:36, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Good spotting! I agree with Thanasis that there is any issue, but I 
think that the range is wrong for P112, which I would argue should also 
be E18.


For example, I find a tree and break off a branch. The tree is not a 
Human-Made Thing, it's an E20 Biological Object. Or I break a piece of 
obsidian (I would argue an E19) into two. Or if the obsidian is part of 
a lava flow, then it would be a physical feature ... and thus we end up 
at E18 as the common ancestor.


I think that E18 remains correct for P113, given the described use of 
removal of a part from an E78 Curated Holding. If I remove a meteorite 
fragment from the collection of a natural history museum, the meteorite 
is (again, I would argue) an E19. Now ... can it ever be an E18 Physical 
Thing but not an E19 Physical Object? It can't be a Feature, as they 
cannot be removed, ruling out E26 and below. However E78 is an E24 
Physical Human-Made Thing, but not an E19 Physical Object.  If we use 
E78 to model sub-collections, and sub-collections can be removed from 
their parent, then yes, here is a case where we need E18.


Rob


On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:


Hm, yes, this is confusing. We might need a new issue to update the
scope note. I think the correct class is E24 as it seems that E80 Part
Removal does not cover cases such as cutting a stalactite off in a cave.

Thanasis

On 29/11/2021 15:41, Erin Canning via Crm-sig wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > I am hoping you might be able to help me with a small confusion -
 >
 > The scope note for E80_Part_Removal
 > > states
 > that "This class comprises the activities that result in an
instance of
 > E18 Physical Thing being decreased by the removal of a part."
This reads
 > to me as if the relationship would then go: E80 > P112_diminished
 > E18,
 > as P112 creates the connection to the thing being diminished (having
 > something removed from it), as opposed to P113_removed, which is
for the
 > connection to the thing that was removed.
 > However, the range of P112 is E24, not E18, and the scope note for
 > P112_diminished
 > > reads
 > "This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
 > that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal."
 > Meanwhile, the range of P113_removed
 > > is E18, as
 > is the range of P31_has_modified >, the
 > superproperty of P112.
 >
 > It seems to me therefore that either I am reading the scope note
 > incorrectly (very possible!) or that there is an inconsistency
between
 > the two, perhaps in the range of P112?
 >
 > I looked in the Issues history for anything about this, and
wonder if
 > the discussion around the change of P31 (Issue 191
 > >) might have
relevance
 > to either the range or language around it, as in that case the
range of
 > P31 was relaxed from E24 to E18. Although, that being said, this
 > perceived E18/E24 inconsistency as described above exists as far
back as
 > v4.0 >, the earliest
 > version available on the website, so perhaps it is my reading of the
 > scope note that is backwards...
 >
 > To summarize, my question is - Which is the correct range of
P112: E18
 > as stated in the E80 scope note or E24 as stated in the P112
scope note
 

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

[Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig]

Good spotting! I agree with Thanasis that there is any issue, but I think
that the range is wrong for P112, which I would argue should also be E18.

For example, I find a tree and break off a branch. The tree is not a
Human-Made Thing, it's an E20 Biological Object. Or I break a piece of
obsidian (I would argue an E19) into two. Or if the obsidian is part of a
lava flow, then it would be a physical feature ... and thus we end up at
E18 as the common ancestor.

I think that E18 remains correct for P113, given the described use of
removal of a part from an E78 Curated Holding. If I remove a meteorite
fragment from the collection of a natural history museum, the meteorite is
(again, I would argue) an E19. Now ... can it ever be an E18 Physical Thing
but not an E19 Physical Object? It can't be a Feature, as they cannot be
removed, ruling out E26 and below. However E78 is an E24 Physical
Human-Made Thing, but not an E19 Physical Object.  If we use E78 to model
sub-collections, and sub-collections can be removed from their parent, then
yes, here is a case where we need E18.

Rob


On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:

> Hm, yes, this is confusing. We might need a new issue to update the
> scope note. I think the correct class is E24 as it seems that E80 Part
> Removal does not cover cases such as cutting a stalactite off in a cave.
>
> Thanasis
>
> On 29/11/2021 15:41, Erin Canning via Crm-sig wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am hoping you might be able to help me with a small confusion -
> >
> > The scope note for E80_Part_Removal
> >  states
> > that "This class comprises the activities that result in an instance of
> > E18 Physical Thing being decreased by the removal of a part." This reads
> > to me as if the relationship would then go: E80 > P112_diminished > E18,
> > as P112 creates the connection to the thing being diminished (having
> > something removed from it), as opposed to P113_removed, which is for the
> > connection to the thing that was removed.
> > However, the range of P112 is E24, not E18, and the scope note for
> > P112_diminished
> >  reads
> > "This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
> > that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal."
> > Meanwhile, the range of P113_removed
> >  is E18, as
> > is the range of P31_has_modified , the
> > superproperty of P112.
> >
> > It seems to me therefore that either I am reading the scope note
> > incorrectly (very possible!) or that there is an inconsistency between
> > the two, perhaps in the range of P112?
> >
> > I looked in the Issues history for anything about this, and wonder if
> > the discussion around the change of P31 (Issue 191
> > ) might have relevance
> > to either the range or language around it, as in that case the range of
> > P31 was relaxed from E24 to E18. Although, that being said, this
> > perceived E18/E24 inconsistency as described above exists as far back as
> > v4.0 , the earliest
> > version available on the website, so perhaps it is my reading of the
> > scope note that is backwards...
> >
> > To summarize, my question is - Which is the correct range of P112: E18
> > as stated in the E80 scope note or E24 as stated in the P112 scope note
> > and range; or am I reading this set of notes/relationships incorrectly?
> >
> > Thanks for your guidance on this,
> > Erin Canning
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Crm-sig mailing list
> > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> >
> ___
> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Hm, yes, this is confusing. We might need a new issue to update the 
scope note. I think the correct class is E24 as it seems that E80 Part 
Removal does not cover cases such as cutting a stalactite off in a cave.


Thanasis

On 29/11/2021 15:41, Erin Canning via Crm-sig wrote:

Hello,

I am hoping you might be able to help me with a small confusion -

The scope note for E80_Part_Removal 
 states 
that "This class comprises the activities that result in an instance of 
E18 Physical Thing being decreased by the removal of a part." This reads 
to me as if the relationship would then go: E80 > P112_diminished > E18, 
as P112 creates the connection to the thing being diminished (having 
something removed from it), as opposed to P113_removed, which is for the 
connection to the thing that was removed.
However, the range of P112 is E24, not E18, and the scope note for 
P112_diminished 
 reads 
"This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made Thing 
that was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal."
Meanwhile, the range of P113_removed 
 is E18, as 
is the range of P31_has_modified , the 
superproperty of P112.


It seems to me therefore that either I am reading the scope note 
incorrectly (very possible!) or that there is an inconsistency between 
the two, perhaps in the range of P112?


I looked in the Issues history for anything about this, and wonder if 
the discussion around the change of P31 (Issue 191 
) might have relevance 
to either the range or language around it, as in that case the range of 
P31 was relaxed from E24 to E18. Although, that being said, this 
perceived E18/E24 inconsistency as described above exists as far back as 
v4.0 , the earliest 
version available on the website, so perhaps it is my reading of the 
scope note that is backwards...


To summarize, my question is - Which is the correct range of P112: E18 
as stated in the E80 scope note or E24 as stated in the P112 scope note 
and range; or am I reading this set of notes/relationships incorrectly?


Thanks for your guidance on this,
Erin Canning



___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig


___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Scope note/range clarification - E80, P112

[Erin Canning via Crm-sig]

Hello,

I am hoping you might be able to help me with a small confusion -

The scope note for 
E80_Part_Removal 
states that "This class comprises the activities that result in an instance of 
E18 Physical Thing being decreased by the removal of a part." This reads to me 
as if the relationship would then go: E80 > P112_diminished > E18, as P112 
creates the connection to the thing being diminished (having something removed 
from it), as opposed to P113_removed, which is for the connection to the thing 
that was removed.
However, the range of P112 is E24, not E18, and the scope note for 
P112_diminished 
reads "This property identifies the instance E24 Physical Human-Made Thing that 
was diminished by an instance of E80 Part Removal."
Meanwhile, the range of 
P113_removed is E18, 
as is the range of P31_has_modified, the 
superproperty of P112.

It seems to me therefore that either I am reading the scope note incorrectly 
(very possible!) or that there is an inconsistency between the two, perhaps in 
the range of P112?

I looked in the Issues history for anything about this, and wonder if the 
discussion around the change of P31 (Issue 
191) might have relevance to 
either the range or language around it, as in that case the range of P31 was 
relaxed from E24 to E18. Although, that being said, this perceived E18/E24 
inconsistency as described above exists as far back as 
v4.0, the earliest version 
available on the website, so perhaps it is my reading of the scope note that is 
backwards...

To summarize, my question is - Which is the correct range of P112: E18 as 
stated in the E80 scope note or E24 as stated in the P112 scope note and range; 
or am I reading this set of notes/relationships incorrectly?

Thanks for your guidance on this,
Erin Canning


___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] PLEASE VOTE: New Member.

[Achille Felicetti via Crm-sig]

Great news!!

I vote YES.

A.

> Il giorno 27 nov 2021, alle ore 21:21, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> It is a great pleasure and honor for us to announce that the Palace Museum in 
> Beijing applies for CRM-SIG membership.
> 
> I have received the following request from the Museum:
> 
> "The Palace Museum would like to apply for the CRM-SIG membership. Ye Yipei, 
> who is now already attending the CRM-SIG meetings informally, would be the 
> Museum's representative. She is now also formally a CIDOC member. We would be 
> honored to have the opportunity to learn from and work with the experts and 
> colleagues from the CRM-SIG".
> 
> PLEASE VOTE  "YES" if you support the new member,
> 
> no, if not,
> 
> by Dec. 10, 2021.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> -- 
> 
> Dr. Martin Doerr
>   Honorary Head of the
> Center for Cultural Informatics
>  Information Systems Laboratory
> Institute of Computer Science
> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
>   N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
> GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
>  Vox:+30(2810)391625
> Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr
> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig


___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] PLEASE VOTE: New Member.

[Pierre Choffé via Crm-sig]

Yes

On Mon, Nov 29th, 2021 at 1:13 PM, Marta Acierno via Crm-sig 
 wrote:

> 
> Yes
> 
> Il giorno lun 29 nov 2021 alle ore 11:42 George Bruseker via Crm-sig < 
> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> > ha scritto:
> 
> 
>> yes
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:37 PM Donatella Fiorani via Crm-sig < 
> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> > wrote:
> 
> 
>> Yes
>> 
>> Il giorno sab 27 nov 2021 alle ore 21:29 Martin Doerr via Crm-sig < 
>> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> > ha scritto:
>> 
>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> It is a great pleasure and honor for us to announce that the Palace
>>> Museum in Beijing applies for CRM-SIG membership.
>>> 
>>> I have received the following request from the Museum:
>>> 
>>> "The Palace Museum would like to apply for the CRM-SIG membership. Ye
>>> Yipei, who is now already attending the CRM-SIG meetings informally,
>>> would be the Museum's representative. She is now also formally a CIDOC
>>> member. We would be honored to have the opportunity to learn from and
>>> work with the experts and colleagues from the CRM-SIG".
>>> 
>>> PLEASE VOTE  "YES" if you support the new member,
>>> 
>>> no, if not,
>>> 
>>> by Dec. 10, 2021.
>>> 
>>> All the best,
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>>   Dr. Martin Doerr
>>> 
>>>   Honorary Head of the
>>>   Center for Cultural Informatics
>>> 
>>>   Information Systems Laboratory
>>>   Institute of Computer Science
>>>   Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
>>> 
>>>   N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
>>>   GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
>>> 
>>>   Vox:+30(2810)391625
>>>   Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr
>>>   Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> prof. arch. Donatella Fiorani
>> 
>> Ordinario di Restauro Architettonico
>> 'Sapienza' Università di Roma
>> 
>> Dipartimento di Storia, Disegno e Restauro dell'Architettura
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>> 
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Marta Acierno
> cell. 340 9075269
> tel. 06 35453388
> Via Belluno 16
> 00161 Roma
>___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] PLEASE VOTE: New Member.

[Marta Acierno via Crm-sig]

Yes

Il giorno lun 29 nov 2021 alle ore 11:42 George Bruseker via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> ha scritto:

> yes
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:37 PM Donatella Fiorani via Crm-sig <
> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
>
>> Yes
>>
>> Il giorno sab 27 nov 2021 alle ore 21:29 Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <
>> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> ha scritto:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> It is a great pleasure and honor for us to announce that the Palace
>>> Museum in Beijing applies for CRM-SIG membership.
>>>
>>> I have received the following request from the Museum:
>>>
>>> "The Palace Museum would like to apply for the CRM-SIG membership. Ye
>>> Yipei, who is now already attending the CRM-SIG meetings informally,
>>> would be the Museum's representative. She is now also formally a CIDOC
>>> member. We would be honored to have the opportunity to learn from and
>>> work with the experts and colleagues from the CRM-SIG".
>>>
>>> PLEASE VOTE  "YES" if you support the new member,
>>>
>>> no, if not,
>>>
>>> by Dec. 10, 2021.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> --
>>> 
>>>   Dr. Martin Doerr
>>>
>>>   Honorary Head of the
>>>   Center for Cultural Informatics
>>>
>>>   Information Systems Laboratory
>>>   Institute of Computer Science
>>>   Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
>>>
>>>   N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
>>>   GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
>>>
>>>   Vox:+30(2810)391625
>>>   Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr
>>>   Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> prof. arch. Donatella Fiorani
>> Ordinario di Restauro Architettonico
>> 'Sapienza' Università di Roma
>> Dipartimento di Storia, Disegno e Restauro dell'Architettura
>>
>> ___
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>


-- 
Marta Acierno
cell. 340 9075269
tel. 06 35453388
Via Belluno 16
00161 Roma
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] PLEASE VOTE: New Member.

[George Bruseker via Crm-sig]

yes

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 12:37 PM Donatella Fiorani via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:

> Yes
>
> Il giorno sab 27 nov 2021 alle ore 21:29 Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <
> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> ha scritto:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> It is a great pleasure and honor for us to announce that the Palace
>> Museum in Beijing applies for CRM-SIG membership.
>>
>> I have received the following request from the Museum:
>>
>> "The Palace Museum would like to apply for the CRM-SIG membership. Ye
>> Yipei, who is now already attending the CRM-SIG meetings informally,
>> would be the Museum's representative. She is now also formally a CIDOC
>> member. We would be honored to have the opportunity to learn from and
>> work with the experts and colleagues from the CRM-SIG".
>>
>> PLEASE VOTE  "YES" if you support the new member,
>>
>> no, if not,
>>
>> by Dec. 10, 2021.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> --
>> 
>>   Dr. Martin Doerr
>>
>>   Honorary Head of the
>>   Center for Cultural Informatics
>>
>>   Information Systems Laboratory
>>   Institute of Computer Science
>>   Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
>>
>>   N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
>>   GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
>>
>>   Vox:+30(2810)391625
>>   Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr
>>   Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>>
>> ___
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>
>
>
> --
> prof. arch. Donatella Fiorani
> Ordinario di Restauro Architettonico
> 'Sapienza' Università di Roma
> Dipartimento di Storia, Disegno e Restauro dell'Architettura
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] PLEASE VOTE: New Member.

[Donatella Fiorani via Crm-sig]

Yes

Il giorno sab 27 nov 2021 alle ore 21:29 Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> ha scritto:

> Dear All,
>
> It is a great pleasure and honor for us to announce that the Palace
> Museum in Beijing applies for CRM-SIG membership.
>
> I have received the following request from the Museum:
>
> "The Palace Museum would like to apply for the CRM-SIG membership. Ye
> Yipei, who is now already attending the CRM-SIG meetings informally,
> would be the Museum's representative. She is now also formally a CIDOC
> member. We would be honored to have the opportunity to learn from and
> work with the experts and colleagues from the CRM-SIG".
>
> PLEASE VOTE  "YES" if you support the new member,
>
> no, if not,
>
> by Dec. 10, 2021.
>
> All the best,
>
> Martin
>
> --
> 
>   Dr. Martin Doerr
>
>   Honorary Head of the
>   Center for Cultural Informatics
>
>   Information Systems Laboratory
>   Institute of Computer Science
>   Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
>
>   N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
>   GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
>
>   Vox:+30(2810)391625
>   Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr
>   Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>


-- 
prof. arch. Donatella Fiorani
Ordinario di Restauro Architettonico
'Sapienza' Università di Roma
Dipartimento di Storia, Disegno e Restauro dell'Architettura
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] PLEASE VOTE: New Member.

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

Yes.

Øyvind

> Am 27.11.2021 um 21:21 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> It is a great pleasure and honor for us to announce that the Palace Museum in 
> Beijing applies for CRM-SIG membership.
> 
> I have received the following request from the Museum:
> 
> "The Palace Museum would like to apply for the CRM-SIG membership. Ye Yipei, 
> who is now already attending the CRM-SIG meetings informally, would be the 
> Museum's representative. She is now also formally a CIDOC member. We would be 
> honored to have the opportunity to learn from and work with the experts and 
> colleagues from the CRM-SIG".
> 
> PLEASE VOTE  "YES" if you support the new member,
> 
> no, if not,
> 
> by Dec. 10, 2021.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> -- 
> 
> Dr. Martin Doerr
>   Honorary Head of the
> Center for Cultural Informatics
>  Information Systems Laboratory
> Institute of Computer Science
> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
>   N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
> GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
>  Vox:+30(2810)391625
> Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr
> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig


___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig