Re: [Crm-sig] Digging for a unknown issue, help needed

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Christian-Emil,

I think it is 469 and 365, as well as the introduction about 
compatibility of extensions:


1A new class or property is added to an extension of the CIDOC CRM, 
which is not covered by superclasses other than E1 CRM Entity or a 
superproperty in the CIDOC CRM respectively. In this case, all facts 
described only by such concepts are not accessible by queries with CIDOC 
CRM concepts. Therefore, the extension should publish in a compatibility 
statement the additional relevant high-level classes and properties 
needed to retrieve all facts documented with the extended model. This 
case is a monotonic extension.



We may argue that AP5 is a modification in any case, even if it ends up 
in complete destruction. Then, the end of existence is however not 
implied. Otherwise, it is a Logical OR of modification and destruction.


Opinions?

Best,


Martin



On 11/25/2022 2:03 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:


Dear all,

In the work with the cleanup of the definition document for CRMarcheo, 
I found a comment (written by myself)  next to



  AP5 removed part or all of (was partially or totally removed by)

Domain:A1 
Excavation 
Processing Unit


Range:A8 
Stratigraphic 
Unit


Subproperty of:  P31 has modified (was modified by)


The comment is as follows (17.09.2020):

DECISION: the sig will start a new issue regarding the superproperty 
of AP5. Candidates involve P31 has modified (D: E11 Modification; R: 
E18 Physical Thing). Any decision will affect the definition of A1 
Excavation Process[ing] Unit ( see issue 446).
The new issue should be of a more general interest than the 
particulars of AP5’s superproperty, and address the question of 
declaring superproperties in the CRMbase exclusively (to the extent 
it’s possible) or across family models.
HW: CEO (?) to check the CRMbase properties that generalize to CRM 
extensions. (this is the content of new issue)



Which issue is the 'new issue' referred to?


Best,

Christian-Emil


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



--

 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] Digging for a unknown issue, help needed

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

In the work with the cleanup of the definition document for CRMarcheo, I found 
a comment (written by myself)  next to

AP5 removed part or all of (was partially or totally removed by)

Domain: 
A1
 Excavation Processing Unit

Range: 
A8
 Stratigraphic Unit

Subproperty of:  P31 has modified (was modified by)

The comment is as follows (17.09.2020):

DECISION: the sig will start a new issue regarding the superproperty of AP5. 
Candidates involve P31 has modified (D: E11 Modification; R: E18 Physical 
Thing). Any decision will affect the definition of A1 Excavation Process[ing] 
Unit ( see issue 446).
The new issue should be of a more general interest than the particulars of 
AP5’s superproperty, and address the question of declaring superproperties in 
the CRMbase exclusively (to the extent it’s possible) or across family models.
HW: CEO (?) to check the CRMbase properties that generalize to CRM extensions. 
(this is the content of new issue)


Which issue is the 'new issue' referred to?


Best,

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

[Crm-sig] issue 557

[athinak via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

Regarding my HW (refer the publicly accessible archival material from 
SeaLit and find the fields that Spectrum uses to document museum 
transactions), you can find the reference in this doc 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r5mgVbLmD3bwjgaWkyQapHedpplSvXEe/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs 
and a selection of related Spectrum categories in this 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zsoc6tCRum6OuTSveqqbpuX9D1UoRjyt/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
There is also helpful material regarding Spectrum 
(https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HyVxXE456MEx4MycNk3gf4UtjvANvx4H), 
such as an old mapping (SPECTRUM TO CIDOC CRM) and the model I proposed 
during 52 CIDOC CRM Meeting)


BRs

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