Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 490 -- E VOTE

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

YES

I think it would be interesting to add an example from musical notation, but I 
do not have any available directly. This can anyway be done later if people 
agree it is a good idea. 

Regards,

Øyvind

> Am 10.05.2024 um 12:51 schrieb Eleni Tsouloucha via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Dear all, 
> During our last meeting, we didn't get to review Martin's HW  
> for
>  issue 490 . It was 
> decided that Martin's proposal to introduce property Pxxx has complete copy 
> (is complete copy of) would be put to an e-vote instead.
> 
> Please indicate your agreement or provide feedback by May 20. 
> 
> All the 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: tsoulo...@isc.forth.gr , 
> eleni.crm@gmail.com 
> Tel: +30 2810391488
> ___
> 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] New Issue, missing part of type

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

Dear Martin,

E80 Part Removal has E7 Activity as a superclass, thus, a part removed without 
any agent being responsible is not intended it seems. 

As to accidents made by agents: we would have to distinguish between 
intentional act and accident in order to say accidents are not part removals. 
Is that necessary?

As for parts missing: it looks useful to me (to be confirmed by those 
documenting archaeological objects), but it will then establish a norm for how 
a object should be or have been. This statue had a head (as documented in ...) 
or this statue belong to a type of objects that has heads (as documented by ...)

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 16.10.2023 um 21:12 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> In the discussion about typed negative properties, I have the impression that 
> a property:
> "misses part of type" may be utterly useful for finding archaeological object 
> in a global search,
> such as the head or arms of a statue, characteristic elements of buildings 
> etc.
> Admittedly, it poses the question where to stop the non-existence, and what 
> missing parts would have a chance to be found.
> Would a part lost by accident be a part removal? Would that be an alternative 
> way of documenting missing parts?
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 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] Issue 576 (about ... entity of type)

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

Dear Martin, and all,

if you are going to discuss aboutness I am really sorry I cannot be there and 
talk about it, but life is about many things, talking about teaching and 
semester start...

Aboutness can be defined very wide (anything someone thinks and is willing to 
state relates to something else) which is not unproblematic, or we can find out 
what we mean by aboutness in a CH documentation setting, which is far from 
trivial. 

That is, I agree with B and D.

Enjoy the meeting!

Øyvind

> Am 12.10.2023 um 09:23 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> With respect to issue 576, a specific aboutness, I'd like to keep in mind 
> 
> (A) to keep the CRMbase small
> 
> (B)  fear that the variety in which "aboutness" may occur is even much 
> greater than that between an image and what is on it. If we talk about texts, 
> we do not encounter the specifics of a photo showing an unknown particular, 
> but reference and coreference issues. Image (or voice) recognition is 
> cognitively very distinct from text (symbolic form). We have, in general, no 
> clear concept in which way the "about an unknown instance" may appear in the 
> information object, if not in a Visual Item.
> 
> (C) if the distinction is necessary, the referencing symbols can always be 
> used to create an instance of "what was meant" at this spot of the 
> information object, even without further data than the type (or whatever else 
> the source stated). If any further reasoning about the dubious unknown item 
> is necessary, such an explicit representation is even preferable for 
> clarifying the possible identity.
> 
> (D) In contrast however, significant amounts of texts refer 
> characteristically to series of instances of a particular type, such as 
> excavation records and many other archeological publications, geographic 
> descriptions, secondary historical literare, etc. These are typically NOT 
> represented in library catalogues, but very useful. However, I'd expect such 
> series to be further characterized by other unity criteria, such as area, 
> time people and others. This reminds me of the "referential collection" 
> construct, we had discussed in the Europeana whitepaper. The need not be in a 
> collection form. E.g. Evliya Celebi, in his famous "travel books" 
> systematically refers to types of buildings in cities in the Ottoman sphere 
> of influence. For these uses, "about instance of type" would again be 
> under-specified.
> 
> Therefore, I vote to resolve the issue with a recommendation to make an 
> explicit URIs for isolated individuals, and further discuss "sets of 
> references with common characteristics".
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 8/18/2023 12:00 AM, Eleni Tsouloucha wrote:
>> Dear all, 
>> 
>> 
>> Issue 576  had 
>> been postponed by issues 610  
>> and
>>  476 
>> ,
>>  which have almost been resolved. Specifically, as far as 610 is concerned, 
>> the only thing it determined was to not deprecate P125 on the grounds that 
>> it's used. It spawned a number of issues (none of which settles the question 
>> that had been raised by George in 576)
>> 
>> 
>> As far as 476 is concerned, it has practically been resolved (the property 
>> was kept in the 7.2.x branch on the grounds that it's been used, some minute 
>> details to be worked around). 
>> 
>> 
>> I think it's time to return to this issue, and determine whether the Pxxx 
>> about ___ of type properties suggested by George will be part of CRMbase, 
>> (N)TPs or will be dealt through more intricate workarounds
>> 
>> 
>> Let me know what you think (and whether this could be discussed at the next 
>> SIG meeting), by 1 September. 
>> 
>> All the 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: tsoulo...@isc.forth.gr , 
>> eleni.crm@gmail.com 
>> Tel: +30 2810391488
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>  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 

Re: [Crm-sig] E-VOTE: LRMoo F31 Performance and properties

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

YES.

Out of curiosity: what does

Subproperty of: Outside of CIDOC CRM scope

for R81 mean?

Øyvind

> Am 30.07.2023 um 03:40 schrieb Pat Riva via Crm-sig :
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> During the SIG meeting #56 in May 2023 in Heraklion, the LRMoo WG presented a 
> new approach to performances (see here for the document 
>  
> discussed at the meeting under Issue 594). 
> 
> The SIG voted to retain class F31 Performance in LRMoo with its revised scope 
> note, and to accept the new properties, R80 performed and R81 recorded, in 
> principle. An e-vote was requested to approve the full declarations of these 
> properties and the edited scope note of F31. The notes and votes from the 
> meeting are in the Issue 360 WD 
> .
>  
> 
> This e-vote is to approve the scope note and examples of F31 Performance, and 
> the definitions of the new properties R80 performed and R81 recorded, as well 
> as the resulting deprecation of R66 included performed version of (replaced 
> by R80).
> 
> This would complete and close Issue 594 
> 
>  (Semantically replacing F29 Recording Event and Extrnalization event).
> 
> This is part of the larger Issue 360 
>  (Development of LRMoo).
> 
> Final declarations for approval are in this document 
> .
> 
> Changes from the drafts presented at SIG #56 are highlighted.
> F31: one more example
> R80: correction of quantification, two more examples
> R81: superproperty, correction of quantification, edit to the scope note, one 
> more example
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Pat
> 
> 
> Pat Riva
> Interim University Librarian / Bibliothécaire en chef par intérim
> Concordia University / Université Concordia
> 1455 de Maisonneuve West, LB-331
> Montréal, Québec H3G 1M8
> Canada
> pat.r...@concordia.ca 
>  
> ___
> 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] EXTENDED DEADLINE: E-VOTE: LRMoo R10 is member of (has member)

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

YES

Øyvind

> Am 29.07.2023 um 23:17 schrieb Pat Riva via Crm-sig :
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Not having had any votes during this vacation period, I'm extending the 
> deadline to Sunday August 20. That is the beginning of the IFLA congress 
> where the BCM Review Group meeting will be held and we will be bringing LRMoo 
> for their approval.
> 
> Thanks,
> Pat
> 
> Pat Riva
> Interim University Librarian / Bibliothécaire en chef par intérim
> Concordia University / Université Concordia
> 1455 de Maisonneuve West, LB-331
> Montréal, Québec H3G 1M8
> Canada
> pat.r...@concordia.ca 
>  
> 
> From: Crm-sig  > on behalf of Pat Riva via Crm-sig 
> mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 6:20 PM
> To: CRM-SIG mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
> Subject: [Crm-sig] E-VOTE: LRMoo R10 is member of (has member)
>  
> Attention This email originates from outside the concordia.ca 
>  domain. // Ce courriel provient de l'extérieur du 
> domaine de concordia.ca 
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I am calling for an e-vote relating to LRMoo. Please vote on the list by July 
> 26th.
> 
> Background: At the end of SIG meeting #55 in May 2023 in Heraklion, the LRMoo 
> WG presented a sketch of a new approach to R10 after the proposal made at the 
> meeting 
> 
>  was considered insufficient. This was received with interest but there was 
> not time to discuss a full proposal.
> 
> This e-vote is to approve the redefinition of R10, and the consequences on 
> R67 (which was originally a subproperty of R10).
> 
> Please see the proposed new text in this Google doc (E-vote: R10 
> ).
> 
> Thanks,
> Pat
> 
> Pat Riva
> Interim University Librarian / Bibliothécaire en chef par intérim
> Concordia University / Université Concordia
> 1455 de Maisonneuve West, LB-331
> Montréal, Québec H3G 1M8
> Canada
> pat.r...@concordia.ca 
>  
> ___
> 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] Open position in Cologne

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

Dear all,

at the Department for Digital Humanities in Cologne a four year position as a 
senior lecturer and research associate is open, which i hope can be interesting 
for people on this list or their colleagues. 

For more details see: https://tinyurl.com/IDHstelle

All the best,

Øyvind

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

Re: [Crm-sig] Call for e-vote: LRMoo R26

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

YES

Øyvind

> Am 20.03.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Pat Riva via Crm-sig :
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Continuing with issues partially discussed but not actually voted at SIG#52 
> in February.
> 
> In the document for Issue 360: HW: F28 Expression Creation 
> ,
>  we did not complete the fourth part, relating to deprecating LRMoo property 
> R26 produced things of type (was produced by).
> 
> R26 links the F32 Carrier Production Event directly to E99 Product Type.
> This is superfluous because property R27 materialized (was materialized by) 
> links F32 Carrier Production Event to F3 Manifestation, and the F3 that is 
> produced via F32 is necessarily multiply instantiated as E99. There is no 
> need to link F32 directly to E99.
> Therefore, the proposal is to deprecate R26.
> 
> For consistency, delete the last sentence of F32 scope note (highlighted in 
> italics) which refers to R26.
> 
> *Please vote Yes to accept the proposal to deprecate R26 (and to remove the 
> sentence referring to it from the F32 scope note), or No to reject the 
> proposal. If voting No, please explain. I will summarize the results to the 
> list on April 3.
> 
> For reference, the relevant scope notes follow.
> 
> R26 produced things of type (was produced by)
> Domain:F32 Carrier Production Event
> Range:   E99 Product Type
> Subproperty of: E12 Production. P186 produced thing of product type (is 
> produced by): E99 Product Type
> Quantification: (1,n:0,n)
> Scope note: This property associates an instance of F32 Carrier 
> Production Event directly with the instance of E99 Product Type that is the 
> prototype displaying the features that all of the F5 Items produced should 
> display. This property is used in preference to R27 materialized (was 
> materialized by) when the instance of F3 Manifestation that is materialized 
> by the instance of F32 Carrier Production Event is also an instance of E99 
> Product Type.
> 
> R27 materialized (was materialized by)
> Domain: F32 Carrier Production Event
> Range:F3 Manifestation
> Subproperty of: E7 Activity. P16 used specific object (was used for): E70 
> Thing
> Quantification: (0,n:0,n)
> Scope note:This property associates an instance of F32 Carrier Production 
> Event with the set of signs provided by the publisher to be carried by all of 
> the produced items (i.e., the instances of F5 Item) and any other physical 
> features foreseen as integral to the instance of F3 Manifestation that is 
> materialised.
> 
> F32 Carrier Production Event
> Subclass of: E12 Production
> Scope note:This class comprises activities that result in instances of F5 
> Item coming into existence. Both the production of a series of physical 
> objects (printed books, scores, CDs, DVDs, CD-ROMs, etc.) and the creation of 
> a new copy of a file on an electronic carrier are regarded as instances of 
> F32 Carrier Production Event.
> Typically, the production of copies of a publication (no matter whether it is 
> a book, a sound recording, a DVD, a cartographic resource, etc.) strives to 
> produce items all as similar as possible to a prototype that displays all the 
> features that all the copies of the publication should also display, which is 
> reflected in the property R27 materialized: F3 Manifestation. In the case 
> where the instance of F3 Manifestation that is materialized is also an 
> instance of E99 Product Type, the property R26 produced things of type is the 
> preferred method to associate the instance of F32 Carrier Production Event 
> directly with the instance of E99 Product Type.
> 
> Thanks, Pat
> 
> Pat Riva
> Acting University Librarian / Bibliothécaire en chef par intérim
> Concordia University / Université Concordia
> 1455 de Maisonneuve West, LB-331
> Montréal, Québec H3G 1M8
> Canada
> pat.r...@concordia.ca 
> 
> ___
> 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] Call for e-vote: LRMoo class F27 and property R16

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

YES to all.

Øyvind

> Am 09.03.2022 um 00:18 schrieb Pat Riva via Crm-sig :
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Following the discussion of F27 
> 
>  during SIG 52 in February, further work on revised scope notes for F27 and 
> R16 was completed. It is presented here for an e-vote.
> 
> This vote is in 2 parts: a-F27; b-R16
> 
> Please vote Yes to accept the revised scope notes, or No to not accept them. 
> If voting no, please explain. I will summarize the results to the list on 
> March 20.
> 
> a) Revised scope note for class F2, renamed as Work Creation
> 
> This class comprises activities by which instances of F1 Work come into 
> existence. An instance of F27 Work Creation can serve to document the period 
> a work was coming into existence and the circumstances of it, when these are 
> known.
> 
> An instance of F27 Work Creation marks the initial creation of an instance of 
> F1 Work through expressions or other externalizations that are sufficiently 
> elaborated so that the characteristic conceptual identity of the work could 
> be recognised as existing.
> 
> In many cases this will coincide with the first known complete 
> externalisation of an expression of the work. In other cases, the initial 
> creation of an instance of F1 Work may be inferred from multiple, or later, 
> expressions or other forms of evidence. For instance, commissioning of a work 
> may explicitly be agreed on after the presentation of an already complete and 
> detailed elaboration of the work that was not made public. Performances may 
> be prior to written expressions, as in the case of Shakespeare’s works.
> 
> The work, as an intellectual construction, may evolve from its initial 
> creation onwards, until the last known expression of it.
> 
> An instance of E39 Actor with which a work is associated through the chain of 
> properties F1 Work. R16i was created by: F27 Work Creation. P14 carried out 
> by: E39 Actor corresponds to the notion of the “creator” of the work.
> 
> 
> -For comparison, the current scope note of F27
> 
> This class comprises beginnings of evolutions of works.
> 
> An instance of F27 Work Conception marks the initiation of the creation of an 
> instance of F1 Work. The work, as an intellectual construction, evolves from 
> this point on, until the last known expression of it. An instance of E39 
> Actor with which a work is associated through the chain of properties F1 
> Work. R16i was initiated by: F27 Work Conception. P14 carried out by: E39 
> Actor corresponds to the notion of the “creator” of the work. In the case of 
> commissioned works, it is not the commissioning that is regarded as the work 
> conception, but the acceptance of the commission.
> 
> This event does not always correlate with the date assigned in common library 
> practice to the work, which is usually a later event (such as the date of 
> completion of the first clean draft).
> 
> In addition, F27 Work Conception can serve to document the circumstances that 
> surrounded the appearance of the original idea for a work, when these are 
> known.
> 
> 
> b) Revised scope note for property R16, renamed "created (was created by)"
> 
> -Revised scope note:
> This property associates the initial creation of a work and the instance of 
> F1 Work that was created.
> 
> 
> - Current scope note of R16
> 
> This property associates the first conception of a work and the instance of 
> F1 Work itself that ensued from a given initial idea.
> 
> It marks the origin of the causality chain that results in a work’s coming 
> into existence.
> 
> 
> Thanks, Pat
> 
> Pat Riva
> Associate University Librarian, Collection Services
> Concordia University 
> Vanier Library (VL-301-61)
> 7141 Sherbrooke Street West
> Montreal, QC H4B 1R6
> Canada
> pat.r...@concordia.ca 
> ___
> 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] Call for e-vote issue 517

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

YES

Øyvind

> Am 03.03.2022 um 20:50 schrieb Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Corrected, my typo. 
> Best,
> Christian-Emil
> 
> 
> From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr via 
> Crm-sig 
> Sent: 03 March 2022 20:38
> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Call for e-vote issue 517
>  
> Dear Christian-Emil,
> 
> I corrected an error: P173 is "not transitive". Then I vote YES.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 3/3/2022 9:13 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> As agreed in the 52nd meeting the background material and the suggested 
>> (small) changes  were made available for discussion and comments on the 
>> sig-list.  The dead line 1st March. It has not been much discussion and 
>> comments - in fact none. The issue should not be controversial. It is time 
>> for an e-vote over the  the full definition text for the 32 properties with 
>> suggested changes (msword with track changes)
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fS7XjApOYimwZnQbmedU3Gk9u3uejETe/edit?usp=sharing=102982314589061437159=true=true
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> Those in favour, vote yes. Those against vote no, and those who want the 
>> issue discussed at the next sig meeting can vote 'veto'
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Christian-Emil
>> 
>> From: Christian-Emil Smith Ore
>> Sent: 14 February 2022 09:47
>> To: crm-sig
>> Subject: issue 517 comments, discussion until end of February
>>  
>> Dear all,
>> The issue 517 with the somewhat misleading title "Does the axiom of 
>> non-reflexivity follow from the definition of transitivity?" boils down to 
>> checking transitivity, symmetry and reflexivity of the 32 properties in 
>> CRMbase with identical domain and range. In the meeting last week (52nd) we 
>> decided that the SIG should have the possibility to study and discuss the 
>> suggested changes until the end of February. On the bais of the discussion 
>> and comments, a proposal for changes will be sent out on an e-vote.
>> 
>> The full definition text for the 32 properties with suggested changes 
>> (msword with track changes)
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fS7XjApOYimwZnQbmedU3Gk9u3uejETe/edit?usp=sharing=102982314589061437159=true=true
>>  
>> 
>> Overview:
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Xzxk1izWTLSTMs5JZuum77PiF73reNJDQxGyENzZeBQ/edit?usp=sharing
>>  
>> 
>> MD & CEO comments and discussion:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/11E1PPNij7R8MueZLEGjB5a4RM6dolG-K/edit?usp=sharing=102982314589061437159=true=true
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 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 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling a simulated view on a physical space

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

Dear Martin,

I agree that elaborating the Dimension - Visual Item question, view directions 
and sections of physical features defined by view focus would be an interesting 
issue. 

It is a question of perspective. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keW4QqRGVN4

Regards,

Øyvind

> Am 27.10.2021 um 19:21 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Dear Florian,
> 
> Nice Problem! Actually I do not regard it a Simulation, because it does not 
> introduce theories to extrapolate into the future or to fit to observational 
> data for theory testing. I think it is simply data Evaluation, which results 
> in an estimate for a place. I'd regard the calculated viewpoint as a 
> declarative E53 Place P168 defined by : the calculated value,  which P189 
> approximates the phenomenal place of the image taking activity. The direction 
> of taking an image is not modeled in the CRM yet as well as some other 
> parameters of observations.
> 
> In my opinion, the image itself can be seen as a measurement of optical 
> qualities of a section of a physical feature, the surface of earth, or an 
> observation in the case of painting. Both would "P138 represent" this 
> section. In CRMdig, we took digital photos as a kind of composite Dimension, 
> because it provides quantitative light emission data, but we did not 
> consolidate this with taking the image as a Visual Item, a kind of 
> Information Object. This is not a contradiction.
> Both, the painting and the photo can represent identifiable details and 
> landmarks that allow for matching them with reality, or an assumed common 
> reality.
> 
> So far, a quick thought. I think, a nice issue, to elaborate the Dimension - 
> Visula Item question, view directions and sections of physical features 
> defined by view focus.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 10/26/2021 10:58 PM, Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig wrote:
>> Dear Florian,
>> 
>> thank you for this interesting puzzle!
>> 
>> Before I venture into concrete suggestions, allow me to ask some question in 
>> the form of assumptions you can confirm, reject, or discuss:
>> 
>> The establishment of a hypothetical viewpoint is used to establish a 
>> location of the canvas. That means the following:
>> 
>> 1. There is a 3D model of a landscape where each point (also those making up 
>> lines and polygons) are normal (x,y,z) coordinates in some coordinate system.
>> 
>> 2. The hypothetical/assumed viewpoint of the photographer or the painter is 
>> a point in the same coordinate system.
>> 
>> 3. Each point of the canvas (representing a painting or a photography) being 
>> put into the landscape is a point in the same coordinate system. Thus the 
>> canvas as a whole is an area in that coordinate system.
>> 
>> If this is so, we might very well talk about something added to a 
>> pre-existing 3D model. If not, I would be happy to be enlightened and 
>> hopefully manage to dig further. 
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Øyvind
>> 
>>> Am 26.10.2021 um 10:28 schrieb Florian Kräutli via Crm-sig 
>>> mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>:
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> I have a data modelling challenge I would need some advice with.
>>> 
>>> We work with a collection of geographic depictions of Switzerland. This 
>>> includes photographs, paintings, prints, sketches, etc. We collaborate with 
>>> Smapshot <http://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/> who developed a method for aligning 
>>> landscape photographs with a 3D model of the physical landscape. An example 
>>> from our own collection can be seen here: 
>>> https://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/visit/204037 
>>> <https://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/visit/204037>
>>> 
>>> Using this method we can determine the possible viewpoint of a photographer 
>>> when taking a picture, or the viewpoint from which an artist may have 
>>> produced sketches of a landscape. In terms of data, we obtain the simulated 
>>> position and view of the photographer/artist as coordinates (lat/long), 
>>> altitude, azimuth, tilt, roll and focal view.
>>> 
>>> I'm debating now how to model this obtained data in CIDOC-CRM. I would 
>>> suggest a S7 Simulation or Prediction for the process of using the Smapshot 
>>> app to determine a viewpoint of an image. This process P140 assigns an 
>>> attribute to a E36 Visual Item, namely that the E36 Visual Item (the image) 
>>> P138 Represents a view. What is this view? Can we say it is a E53 Place? Or 
>>> is there a more suitable entity for describing such a (simulated) view?
>

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling a simulated view on a physical space

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

Dear Florian,

in addition to the comments made by others, which makes a lot of sense too, I 
would offer the additional perspective that the resulting 3D model (with the 
added canvas) can be seen as a collage of the source 3D model and a digital 
reproduction of the photography / painting — thus as a work is the bringing 
together, based on certain rules and principles, of two works. 

I think this adds a different perspective than some of the others mentioned. 
Which perspectives to focus on when modelling such processes is a pragmatic 
choice. 

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 27.10.2021 um 12:18 schrieb Florian Kräutli via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Dear Øyvind,
> 
> Thank you very much for your input! To answer your questions:
> 
> 1. Yes, the tool uses a 3D model of a landscape (based on Cesium: 
> https://cesium.com/ )
> 2. Yes
> 3. Yes. The tool positions the image in a 3D landscape so that from the 
> calculated viewpoint, the 2D image aligns with the 3D landscape. The tool 
> also outputs a glTF of what I assume is the canvas position in the coordinate 
> system: 
> https://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/api/v1/data/collections/36/gltf/204037.gltf 
> 
>  (though I'm not familiar with this file format)
> 
> I should mention that I also discussed this issue via Slack with Matteo 
> Lorenzini. Nicola Carboni already prepared a model to document the 
> perspective over a place by a person, documented as the point of observation 
> by an actor. We concluded that we could apply that model also in this case. 
> However, I would be very interested in your thoughts on how to treat it on 
> the level of the 3D model. That might help me to model the data closer to the 
> actual process of how it was obtained.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Florian
> 
> 
>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling a simulated view on a physical space
>> Date: 26. October 2021 at 21:58:32 CEST
>> To: Florian Kräutli > >
>> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Florian,
>> 
>> thank you for this interesting puzzle!
>> 
>> Before I venture into concrete suggestions, allow me to ask some question in 
>> the form of assumptions you can confirm, reject, or discuss:
>> 
>> The establishment of a hypothetical viewpoint is used to establish a 
>> location of the canvas. That means the following:
>> 
>> 1. There is a 3D model of a landscape where each point (also those making up 
>> lines and polygons) are normal (x,y,z) coordinates in some coordinate system.
>> 
>> 2. The hypothetical/assumed viewpoint of the photographer or the painter is 
>> a point in the same coordinate system.
>> 
>> 3. Each point of the canvas (representing a painting or a photography) being 
>> put into the landscape is a point in the same coordinate system. Thus the 
>> canvas as a whole is an area in that coordinate system.
>> 
>> If this is so, we might very well talk about something added to a 
>> pre-existing 3D model. If not, I would be happy to be enlightened and 
>> hopefully manage to dig further. 
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Øyvind
>> 
>>> Am 26.10.2021 um 10:28 schrieb Florian Kräutli via Crm-sig 
>>> mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>:
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> I have a data modelling challenge I would need some advice with.
>>> 
>>> We work with a collection of geographic depictions of Switzerland. This 
>>> includes photographs, paintings, prints, sketches, etc. We collaborate with 
>>> Smapshot  who developed a method for aligning 
>>> landscape photographs with a 3D model of the physical landscape. An example 
>>> from our own collection can be seen here: 
>>> https://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/visit/204037 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Using this method we can determine the possible viewpoint of a photographer 
>>> when taking a picture, or the viewpoint from which an artist may have 
>>> produced sketches of a landscape. In terms of data, we obtain the simulated 
>>> position and view of the photographer/artist as coordinates (lat/long), 
>>> altitude, azimuth, tilt, roll and focal view.
>>> 
>>> I'm debating now how to model this obtained data in CIDOC-CRM. I would 
>>> suggest a S7 Simulation or Prediction for the process of using the Smapshot 
>>> app to determine a viewpoint of an image. This process P140 assigns an 
>>> attribute to a E36 Visual Item, namely that the E36 Visual Item (the image) 
>>> P138 Represents a view. What is this view? Can we say it is a E53 Place? Or 
>>> is there a more suitable entity for describing such a (simulated) view?
>>> 
>>> One could also say that the data defines a E53 Place from which an image 
>>> has been created. However, while we can say this with some degree of 
>>> certainty for photographs, a painting of a landscape might have been 
>>> created using a combination of several viewpoints as well as, of course, 
>>> use of 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling a simulated view on a physical space

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

Dear Florian,

thank you for this interesting puzzle!

Before I venture into concrete suggestions, allow me to ask some question in 
the form of assumptions you can confirm, reject, or discuss:

The establishment of a hypothetical viewpoint is used to establish a location 
of the canvas. That means the following:

1. There is a 3D model of a landscape where each point (also those making up 
lines and polygons) are normal (x,y,z) coordinates in some coordinate system.

2. The hypothetical/assumed viewpoint of the photographer or the painter is a 
point in the same coordinate system.

3. Each point of the canvas (representing a painting or a photography) being 
put into the landscape is a point in the same coordinate system. Thus the 
canvas as a whole is an area in that coordinate system.

If this is so, we might very well talk about something added to a pre-existing 
3D model. If not, I would be happy to be enlightened and hopefully manage to 
dig further. 

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 26.10.2021 um 10:28 schrieb Florian Kräutli via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I have a data modelling challenge I would need some advice with.
> 
> We work with a collection of geographic depictions of Switzerland. This 
> includes photographs, paintings, prints, sketches, etc. We collaborate with 
> Smapshot  who developed a method for aligning 
> landscape photographs with a 3D model of the physical landscape. An example 
> from our own collection can be seen here: 
> https://smapshot.heig-vd.ch/visit/204037 
> 
> 
> Using this method we can determine the possible viewpoint of a photographer 
> when taking a picture, or the viewpoint from which an artist may have 
> produced sketches of a landscape. In terms of data, we obtain the simulated 
> position and view of the photographer/artist as coordinates (lat/long), 
> altitude, azimuth, tilt, roll and focal view.
> 
> I'm debating now how to model this obtained data in CIDOC-CRM. I would 
> suggest a S7 Simulation or Prediction for the process of using the Smapshot 
> app to determine a viewpoint of an image. This process P140 assigns an 
> attribute to a E36 Visual Item, namely that the E36 Visual Item (the image) 
> P138 Represents a view. What is this view? Can we say it is a E53 Place? Or 
> is there a more suitable entity for describing such a (simulated) view?
> 
> One could also say that the data defines a E53 Place from which an image has 
> been created. However, while we can say this with some degree of certainty 
> for photographs, a painting of a landscape might have been created using a 
> combination of several viewpoints as well as, of course, use of imagination 
> on and off-site, so I would be hesitant to make a statement about the 
> physical location of an artist when creating a painting.
> 
> I would be grateful for your input!
> 
> All best,
> 
> Florian
> 
> ___
> 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] Linked Places mapping

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

For work on gazetteers I would suggest to bring in Humphrey Southall.

https://www.port.ac.uk/about-us/structure-and-governance/our-people/our-staff/humphrey-southall

He has been working on them for decades and argued they organise information in 
a way which is useful also in a digital world.

All the best,

Øyvind 

> Am 09.09.2021 um 19:35 schrieb Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Still the information in a gazetteers and in old land (mediaeval, early 
> modern) registries can be organized compliant with CRM. I assume that is what 
> is meant. This, in my opinion, an interesting task and could help a lot.
> Best,
> Christian-Emil
> 
> 
> From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr via 
> Crm-sig 
> Sent: 09 September 2021 18:50
> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Linked Places mapping
>  
> Dear Francesco, Richard,
> 
> I am a bit confused. Even though people wrongly call a gazetteer a "place 
> name ontology", it has nothing to do with ontology, because it is a 
> collection of particulars. A place is not a class. 
> 
> I understand that the mapping exercise is a data transformation from Pelagios 
> schema, rather than the data about places, to CRM (geo). That should be a 
> question of X3ML.
> 
> Is or includes ontome.net a schema mapping tool with data tansformation 
> instructions? 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 9/9/2021 5:41 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
>> Dear Richard,
>> Notwithstanding a more authoritative response, we have developed the 
>> ontome.net application precisely for coping with this kind of issues – and 
>> providing in the end a RDF (XML-OWL) export of the mapping.
>> So, if you're interested, we can exchange on this.
>> Best wishes
>> Francesco
>> Le 09.09.21 à 12:46, Richard Light via Crm-sig a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>> The Linked Pasts gazetteer group (part of Pelagios) yesterday expressed an 
>>> interest in mapping their Linked Places ontology to the CIDOC CRM. What is 
>>> the current state of the art for doing this sort of mapping?  The last time 
>>> I was involved in such an exercise, the result ended up in a 
>>> not-very-processible spreadsheet, but I have a feeling we can do better 
>>> than that these days.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard
>>> -- 
>>> Richard Light
>>> richardlight...@gmail.com 
>>> @richardofsussex
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>  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] Argument for an Instrument Class (and its property)

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

Really interesting distinction. When doing pre-digital surveys for maps we used 
the compass for direction (clearly an instrument, and active?) and bodily 
calibrated steps to count the meters of distances (clearly part of the human 
body). Still the results of these measurements were more or less equally 
(in)accurate and were recorded in a similar way (pencil on transparent paper). 

Can we define by function? Are instruments just anything used for measurements? 
Neat solution but will lead to quite counter-intuitive claims I fear. 

I am sure the homework will lead to some further questions, hopefully bringing 
us further. 

Regards,

Øyvind

> Am 07.09.2021 um 22:14 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Great!  Critical question: What constitutes a single instrument, and where do 
> we draw a line to tools? I'd argue that one measurement instrument should be 
> able to yield a quantitative result, and be a sort of "black box" integrated 
> device, such as the sequencing machines.
> 
> Question: yardsticks are "passive". Are they still instruments, even though 
> the human eye is the instrument? I think they are a different category of 
> calibrated objects for comparing, such as color charts etc.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Martin 
> 
> On 9/7/2021 8:11 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> 
>> I'm happy to take a homework to write up DNA measurement with CRM and 
>> Instruments in mind :)
>> 
>> [My wife used to work for Illumina , and then for 
>> one of their biggest customers, and was part of the team that discovered the 
>> markers that led to Grail ]
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 12:47 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
>> mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> Just to give you a picture of the diversity and complexity we discuss.
>> 
>> Probably the high-end in complexity is a DNA - taxonomic distance 
>> measurement, a procedure, even though straightforward and deterministic, 
>> as I understand, with an great number of steps, a series of instruments 
>> subsequently used and possible errors in each one.
>> 
>> Interesting also a LIPS / Raman analysis of painting colorants, which 
>> uses multiple instruments until the final result,  not reliably 
>> quantitative and including assumptions about a limited set of possible 
>> colorants that might be wrong.
>> 
>> As the most simple ones we may have yard sticks, but the most exotic in 
>> simplicity I can think of are pyrometric cones. They are used worldwide 
>> to monitor ceramic firings in industrial kilns, pottery kilns, for a 
>> one-time measurement of the maximum temperature reached by firing a 
>> kiln. They are calibrated to one temperature only, but normally 
>> destroyed by the measurement.
>> 
>> What is "one instrument", and are pyrometric cones and yardsticks 
>> instruments? What about body parts (ells, feet)
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On 9/6/2021 1:59 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
>> > I think this would be a useful discussion and class. It has also been 
>> > proposed within the PARCOURS model although perhaps a tighter proposal 
>> > can be made.
>> >
>> > Thanasis
>> >
>> > P.S. The example for P103 could do with updating...
>> >
>> > On 01/09/2021 20:47, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
>> >> Hi George,
>> >>
>> >> I think this is a good idea, of course, we should first look at a 
>> >> more specific property, since "instruments" can be very 
>> >> heterogeneous, or we concentrate on measurement devices in a narrower 
>> >> sense.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> Martin
>> >>
>> >> On 8/25/2021 12:53 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
>> >>> Dear all,
>> >>>
>> >>> I am working on a conservation science modelling project in which 
>> >>> the users document also their machinery. Something that comes up is 
>> >>> that they want to document the kind of property or variable that is 
>> >>> measured by the machine. This is a property of the machine, what it 
>> >>> can do (dunamis).
>> >>>
>> >>> We of course already have p103 was intended for
>> >>> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/P103-was-intended-for/version-7.1.1 
>> >>>  
>> >>> > >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> I already make use of this for the purpose of documenting the 
>> >>> general kind of method the machine can be used for.
>> >>>
>> >>> But when you run the machine, it tests for certain variables and 
>> >>> produces a resulting output which is a digital record of a signal 
>> >>> carrying that variable.
>> >>>
>> >>> This reminds me of some elements from CRMSci and from CRMdig
>> >>>
>> >>> CRMSci has observations that look for property types:
>> >>>
>> >>> S4 Observation
>> >>> O9 observed property type E55
>> >>>
>> >>> 

Re: [Crm-sig] evote: Issue 535 example of Pxxx represents instance of type

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

YES

Øyvind

> Am 02.07.2021 um 13:29 schrieb E. Tsoulouha via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> According to the decision for issue 535 in the 50th CIDOC CRM SIG meeting, 
> the first example of Pxx represents instance of type should be reformulated 
> in order to capture the fact that the thing represented is an unnamed 
> instance of a particular type --which means that the representation 
> illustrates the characteristics of one particular individual, rather than 
> features normally associated with a specific type of thing.
> 
> 
> The vote is to decide on whether to accept the example, following Martin's 
> reformulation.
> 
> Example:
> 
> The top right image on page 87 in the book 'Pharaoh's Birds' by John Miles 
> (E36) represents instance of type hoopoe (Upupa epops) (E55). 
> [This image is a reproduction of a photograph. The same book shows at the top 
> of page 35 an image representing an unnamed ancient Egyptian relief depicting 
> a hoopoe and other 'Birds of the Marshes'. In contrast to the photograph, the 
> latter image of the ancient Egyptian depiction shows intentionally typical 
> rather than individual characteristics of the respective species, and 
> therefore should be associated with the property P138 represents with the 
> species name hoopoe (Upupa epops)]. (Miles, 1998)
> 
> 
> [* citation here: Miles, J. (1998) Pharaoh’s Birds. A guide to ancient and 
> present-day birds in Egypt. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. 
> ISBN 977 424 490 7]
> 
> The possible votes are:
> 
> * Yes = accept/agree
> * No = do not accept/agree
> * Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes,
> but there is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish 
> to stop the proposal, in which case you should also write a justification and 
> reformulate the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change is unacceptable because it 
> violates the following principle...')
> 
> Please send your e-votes by the 18th of July.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Eleni
> 
> ___
> 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] E-vote for issue 493 (example templates)

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

YES

> Am 18.06.2021 um 11:47 schrieb Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> This issue is about agreeing a rationale and a template based on which 
> CRMbase and CRM extension examples will be produced. The working document for 
> this issue is here:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-PIIjXkDul1F0A7AoA4S95H0qY2CY9a7BKa1HK7wicA/edit?usp=sharing
>  
> 
> The homework including annotated templates is here:
> 
> odt: 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YtZBSx5ZCOQ5ntFUf34TY-_aeR4OIrJY/view?usp=sharing
>  
> 
> docx: 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S6ZAy7Y3TO2ndNtJNkf-NrFeMpVNnXAj/view?usp=sharing
>  
> 
> The vote is to decide on whether to adopt the homework document.
> The possible votes are:
> 
> Yes = accept/agree
> No = do not accept/agree
> Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes, but there 
> is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish to stop the 
> proposal, in which case you should also write a justification and reformulate 
> the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change is unacceptable because it violates the 
> following principle...')
> Please send your e-votes by the 28th of June.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Thanasis
> ___
> 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] E-vote for issue 384 (template for family models)

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

YES

> Am 18.06.2021 um 11:56 schrieb Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> This issue is about agreeing a template based on which the specification 
> documents of CRM family models will be produced. The working document for 
> this issue is here:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N09On4q4j4c8mIvSfMZTsWk-vsUIkdn2jRIzBlW8smU/edit?usp=sharing
>  
> 
> The proposed template is here:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xWq1SIcoSNMmmwpO3TfE6LTC9cYsRapy/view?usp=sharing
>  
> 
> The vote is to decide on whether to adopt the template document. The main 
> change from the existing template is the inclusion of a table for class and 
> property dependencies to allow clear references to other models without 
> repeating material and while keeping track of different versions.
> The possible votes are:
> 
> Yes = accept/agree
> No = do not accept/agree
> Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes, but there 
> is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish to stop the 
> proposal, in which case you should also write a justification and reformulate 
> the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change is unacceptable because it violates the 
> following principle...')
> Please send your e-votes by the 28th of June.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Thanasis
> ___
> 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] 511 e-vote

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

YES

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 19.03.2021 um 11:37 schrieb Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig 
> :
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and 
> voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1 
> CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing. Homework was assigned to check how scope 
> notes and related properties are affected, recommend changes and call an 
> e-vote for those. I am listing the required changes below. With regards to 
> those changes, the possible votes are: 
> 
> Yes = accept/agree
> No = do not accept/agree
> Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes, but there 
> is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish to stop the 
> proposed change from happening, in which case you should also write a 
> justification and reformulate the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change is 
> unacceptable because it violates the following principle...')
> 
> 

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

Re: [Crm-sig] New project, question for input

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

Dear Daria Hookk,

This looks good! It is in cooperation with the EADH conference in Krasnoyarsk 
the same week, right?

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 15.03.2021 um 10:36 schrieb Дарья Юрьевна Гук :
> 
> Dear friends, 
> we already announced the event but maybe not everybody heard, I am so sorry 
> http://conf.sfu-kras.ru/en/virtualarchaeology 
> 
> Online+offline, free
> 
> With kind regards,
> Daria Hookk
> 
> Senior Researcher of
> the dept. of archaeology of
> Eastern Europe and Siberia of 
> the State Hermitage Museum,
> PhD, ICOMOS member
> 
> E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru 
> Skype: daria.hookk
> https://hermitage.academia.edu/HookkDaria 
> 
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] New project, question for input

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

> Am 15.03.2021 um 10:15 schrieb Дарья Юрьевна Гук :
> 
> There are academic institutions in Siant Peterburg (Russia) in contact with 
> Mongolian collegues realizing grants projects in arcives. 
> Hope they will be glad to participate. What do you mean ander 3-4 countries 
> if Russian Federation and Mongolia - only 2? 

Yes that would be nice!

The partners are:

Institut für Digital Humanities (IDH), Universität zu Köln

CUT - Digital Heritage Research Lab/UNESCO Chair on Digital Cultural Heritage, 
Cyprus University of Technology (CUT), Limassol, Cyprus

Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture (DICAR), Università degli 
Studi di Catania (UNICT), Catania, Italy

Knowledge and Uncertainty Research Laboratory (ΓΑΒ LAB), University of 
Peloponnese (UOP), Greece

Perm State University (PSU), Perm, Russia

Russian State University for the Humanities (RSUH), Moscow, Russia

Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (IKBFU), Kaliningrad, Russia

Tuvan State University (TuvSU), Kysyl, Russia

Mongolian University of Science & Technology (MUST), Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

National University of Mongolia (NUM), Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

University of the Humanities (UH), Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

International Hellenic University (IHU), Thessaloniki, Greece

All the best,

Øyvind

> 
> With kind regards,
> Daria Hookk
> 
> Senior Researcher of
> the dept. of archaeology of
> Eastern Europe and Siberia of 
> the State Hermitage Museum,
> PhD, ICOMOS member
> 
> E-mail: ho...@hermitage.ru 
> Skype: daria.hookk
> https://hermitage.academia.edu/HookkDaria 
> 
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] New project, question for input

[Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig]

Dear Colleagues,

thank you for a good and fruitful meeting this week!

In January, we started a new project funded by the Erasmus+ programme: ARTEST 
https://dh.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/forschung/artest 
<https://dh.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/forschung/artest>

The aim of the project is to develop new MA study programmes in digital 
humanities/digital cultural heritage in four Russian and three Mongolian 
countries. The project is coordinated by us in Cologne and, in addition to the 
Russian and Mongolian partners, also include four other EU partners. 

While the strength of digital cultural heritage generally and the knowledge and 
use of CIDOC-CRM specifically in Russia is well documented, also on this list, 
I have not seen much connected to Mongolian institutions. The universities we 
work with have well developed networks of course, but I would still he happy if 
anyone on this list with knowledge of or experience from working with cultural 
heritage documentation in Mongolia would be willing to have a chat about it.

Any other suggestions and comments on the project is of course also welcome. 

All the best,

Øyvind

-- 
Prof. Dr. Øyvind Eide
Institut für Digital Humanities — Historisch-Kulturwissenschaftliche 
Informationsverarbeitung
Universität zu Köln
Albertus-Magnus-Platz
D-50931 Köln

Büro: Universitätsstraße 22, Raum 1.02 (1 OG)
URL: http://idh.uni-koeln.de/ <http://idh.uni-koeln.de/>
fon: +49.221.470.1752 (Vorzimmer .4430)___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 388 measuring position

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

it makes sense to me. I will try to formulate something and thus find out if I 
actually think something is missing. 

Regards,

Øyvind

> Am 05.03.2021 um 17:47 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear Øyvind,
> 
> Indeed I'd call this still a form of triangulation. If you determine the 
> relative position by (Dx,Dy), you create a rectangular triangle, with your 
> distance walked being the hypotenuse.
> 
> If you have a nice proposal text to add, welcome! So far, I think I have 
> covered analogue practices.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 3/5/2021 5:11 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>> Dear Martin,
>> 
>> I am considering a possible practical counter-example from my own manual 
>> measurement experience. I am not sure if it is relevant but maybe the first 
>> sentence (”Any position measurement is based on triangulation with multiples 
>> distances to reference points and angle measurements”) should be modified.
>> 
>> I am mapping the location of a boulder. Using a compass and my steps, fairly 
>> well calibrated to one meter, I measure the distance and direction from my 
>> fix point, in this case the spot where a creek is crossing a path.
>> 
>> The fix point itself is established through stereo aerial photography and 
>> thus, based on a sort of triangulation. But my measurement from the fix 
>> point and the boulder is based on the distance and direction from the single 
>> fix point.
>> 
>> Maybe it makes sense to still call this a triangulation as the compass shows 
>> the direction to the magnetic north. 
>> 
>> Whatever can be argued about this, maybe it makes sense to add to the GPS 
>> descriptions a bit more on analogue measurement practices? They were the 
>> basis for a massive amount of museum and cultural heritage documentation. 
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Øyvind
>> 
>>> Am 01.03.2021 um 21:19 schrieb Martin Doerr >> <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>:
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> I revise my previous proposal for measuring positions:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Any position measurement is based on triangulation with multiples distances 
>>> to reference points and angle measurements. GPS measures distances to 
>>> satellites. Distances are Dimensions. If directed distances use 
>>> georeferenced directions, i.e. angle to the rotation axis of earth, etc. 
>>> angles are again dimensions. Hence, a position measurement is an evaluation 
>>> of a combination of multiple associated distance and angle measurements 
>>> from a particular spot to certain reference points of known position in the 
>>> same reference space. If stars are used, they constitute (extremely) 
>>> distant reference points. Gravity and Earth Magnetic Field also provide 
>>> reference directions for angle measurements that do not need a second 
>>> reference point. Classical longitude measurements use temporal simultaneity 
>>> of a common event with a reference location, which evaluates to an angle. 
>>> All methods are fairly complex, but the details are a standard routine or 
>>> even hidden in a modern GPS module. 
>>> 
>>> Therefore we argue that position measurement is a specific (composite) 
>>> observation which results in a position expression, but the constituent 
>>> dimensions may or may not be documented.
>>> Hence, P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension may not be 
>>> instantiated.
>>>  
>>> All position measurements are approximations of other places. Therefore, 
>>> they result in a declarative place defined by an E94 Space Primitive. Since 
>>> in general we talk about moving reference spaces, moving things and 
>>> evolving processes, the time of measurement is essential. We take it either 
>>> to be the time-span of the measurement, or a narrower time-span which 
>>> covers the contributing time-critical observations. In essence, this 
>>> defines a declarative spacetime box (volume), which again is an 
>>> approximation. It appears to me that such an approximation would normally 
>>> be used to determine parts of the extent of some instance of Presence by 
>>> overlap, coverage or containment. 
>>> 
>>> Sxxx Position Measurement
>>> 
>>> Subclass of:E16 Attribute Assignment
>>> 
>>> Scope note: This class comprises activities of measuring positions in 
>>> space and time. The measured position is intended to approximate a part or 
>>> all of the e

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 388 measuring position

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

I am considering a possible practical counter-example from my own manual 
measurement experience. I am not sure if it is relevant but maybe the first 
sentence (”Any position measurement is based on triangulation with multiples 
distances to reference points and angle measurements”) should be modified.

I am mapping the location of a boulder. Using a compass and my steps, fairly 
well calibrated to one meter, I measure the distance and direction from my fix 
point, in this case the spot where a creek is crossing a path.

The fix point itself is established through stereo aerial photography and thus, 
based on a sort of triangulation. But my measurement from the fix point and the 
boulder is based on the distance and direction from the single fix point.

Maybe it makes sense to still call this a triangulation as the compass shows 
the direction to the magnetic north. 

Whatever can be argued about this, maybe it makes sense to add to the GPS 
descriptions a bit more on analogue measurement practices? They were the basis 
for a massive amount of museum and cultural heritage documentation. 

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 01.03.2021 um 21:19 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I revise my previous proposal for measuring positions:
> 
> 
> Any position measurement is based on triangulation with multiples distances 
> to reference points and angle measurements. GPS measures distances to 
> satellites. Distances are Dimensions. If directed distances use georeferenced 
> directions, i.e. angle to the rotation axis of earth, etc. angles are again 
> dimensions. Hence, a position measurement is an evaluation of a combination 
> of multiple associated distance and angle measurements from a particular spot 
> to certain reference points of known position in the same reference space. If 
> stars are used, they constitute (extremely) distant reference points. Gravity 
> and Earth Magnetic Field also provide reference directions for angle 
> measurements that do not need a second reference point. Classical longitude 
> measurements use temporal simultaneity of a common event with a reference 
> location, which evaluates to an angle. All methods are fairly complex, but 
> the details are a standard routine or even hidden in a modern GPS module. 
> 
> Therefore we argue that position measurement is a specific (composite) 
> observation which results in a position expression, but the constituent 
> dimensions may or may not be documented.
> Hence, P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension may not be 
> instantiated.
>  
> All position measurements are approximations of other places. Therefore, they 
> result in a declarative place defined by an E94 Space Primitive. Since in 
> general we talk about moving reference spaces, moving things and evolving 
> processes, the time of measurement is essential. We take it either to be the 
> time-span of the measurement, or a narrower time-span which covers the 
> contributing time-critical observations. In essence, this defines a 
> declarative spacetime box (volume), which again is an approximation. It 
> appears to me that such an approximation would normally be used to determine 
> parts of the extent of some instance of Presence by overlap, coverage or 
> containment. 
> 
> Sxxx Position Measurement
> 
> Subclass of:E16 Attribute Assignment
> 
> Scope note: This class comprises activities of measuring positions in 
> space and time. The measured position is intended to approximate a part or 
> all of the extent of the presence (instance of E93 Presence) of an instance 
> of E18 Physical Thing or E4 Period of interest, such as the outer walls of an 
> excavated settlement, the position of a ship sailing or the start and end of 
> athlete’s run in a competition. Characteristically, a theodolite or GPS 
> device may be positioned on some persistent feature. Measuring the position 
> of the device will yield an approximation of the position of the feature of 
> interest. Alternatively, some material item may be observed moving through a 
> measured position at a given time. 
> 
> A position measurement is an evaluation of a combination of measurement of 
> multiple associated distances and/or angles (instances of E54 Dimension) from 
> a particular spot to certain reference points of previously known position in 
> the same reference space. Often, the observed constituting dimensions are not 
> documented, or hidden in an electronic device software.The measured position 
> is given as an E94 Space Primitive corresponding to a declarative place. 
> Together with the measured time-span covering the time-critical observations 
> it forms a spacetime volume, which should normally overlap with the 
> spatiotemporal extent of the thing or phenomenon of interest. 
> 
> Properties:
> 
> Oxx1 determined position (was determined by): E94 Space Primitive
> 
> Oxx2 has validity time-span (is position validity for): E52 Time-Span
> 
> We may now 

Re: [Crm-sig] CALL FOR VOTE: NEW MEMBER

[Øyvind Eide]

Yes!

Øyvind

> Am 26.01.2021 um 19:13 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> It is a pleasure for me to announce that Delving B.V., with representative 
> Sjoerd Siebinga, applies for  joining CRM-SIG. Delving as a company has been 
> involved intermittently in the CIDOC-CRM community for the past 11 years.
> 
> "Delving is an SME based in The Netherlands that provides unified cultural 
> heritage data
> management software based on the CIDOC-CRM. Its mission is to provide 
> tailored but
> open-source solutions that enhance the visibility and accessibility of their 
> customers collections
> and research data. Recent key projects include ‘aggregating metadata about 
> stolen art in the
> second world war for restitution research’, ‘archive system with embedded 
> models from arches’.
> Our goal is to describe the internal storage model for the aggregation 
> platform and new
> mapping engine with the CIDOC-CRM. Our focus for CIDOC-CRM contributions for 
> this year
> would be on the JSON-LD representation and the use of the standard to support 
> our Archival
> APIs such as EAD and ‘records in context’ (RICO).
> 
> We would like to express our keen interest in formally becoming a member of 
> the CRM Special
> Interest Group (CRM-SIG) and to actively contribute to the further 
> development and adoption of
> CIDOC-CRM. Delving will be represented at the CRM-SIG by Sjoerd Siebinga.
> With kinders regards,
> 
> Sjoerd Siebinga (CEO)
> Delving B.V.
> De Ruijterstraat 82
> 2518 AW, Den Haag
> The Netherlands"
> 
> PLEASE VOTE by Feb 10, 2021
> 
> YES or NO
> 
> Martin Doerr
> 
> Chair of 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.pdf>___
> 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] E-Vote: Change of Scope Note E10 Transfer of Custody (Issue 475)

[Øyvind Eide]

I vote YES with the caveat that the examples should be looked at again and made 
easier to understand by rephrasing and adding some context to the cases. I can 
give more details to my issues with them if wanted. 

All the best,

Øyvind


> Am 06.10.2020 um 07:45 schrieb George Bruseker :
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> In the last CRM SIG (47) we discussed issue 475 
>  which has to do 
> with a change to the scope note of E10 Transfer of Custody. R. Sanderson 
> noted that the scope note seemed to contain a contradiction since the first 
> line indicated that the transfer of custody was of 'physical possession' 
> while the second paragraph indicated that it could be of physical possession 
> OR only of legal custody. 
> 
> R. Sanderson proposed to update the scope note in order to consistently 
> express that the base line case is that BOTH physical and legal custody are 
> transferred and in the case that it is only one or the other this would be 
> expressed using the p2 has type property. 
> 
> This proposal was generally accepted and the work of creating the precise 
> wording was left as homework. This HW has been provided by R Sanderson and is 
> in a good state for voting on. 
> 
> Please find below the text of the old and the new scope note. After having 
> read them, please vote by replying to this email whether to accept this 
> change. 
> 
> You may vote Yes, Yes with a caveat or No, indicating the reason for 
> rejecting the proposal.
> 
> Please indicate your vote by October 16th.
> 
> Changes marked in blue
> 
> -
> 
> OLD scope note
> E10 Transfer of Custody 
> Subclass of:  E7 Activity 
> 
> Scope note:   This class comprises transfers of physical custody of objects 
> between instances of E39 Actor. The recording of the donor and/or recipient 
> is optional. It is possible that in an instance of E10 Transfer of Custody 
> there is either no donor or no recipient. Depending on the circumstances it 
> may describe: 
> 
> 1. the beginning of custody 
> 2. the end of custody 
> 3. the transfer of custody 
> 4. the receipt of custody from an unknown source 
> 5. the declared loss of an object 
> 
> The distinction between the legal responsibility for custody and the actual 
> physical possession of the object should be expressed using the property P2 
> has type (is type of). A specific case of transfer of custody is theft. The 
> sense of physical possession requires that the object of custody is in the 
> hands of the keeper at least with a part representative for the whole. The 
> way, in which a representative part is defined, should ensure that it is 
> unambiguous who keeps a part and who the whole and should be consistent with 
> the identity criteria of the kept instance of E18 Physical Thing. For 
> instance, in the case of a set of cutlery we may require the majority of 
> pieces having been in the hands of the actor regardless which individual 
> pieces are kept over time. 
> 
> The interpretation of the museum notion of "accession" differs between 
> institutions. The CIDOC CRM therefore models legal ownership and physical 
> custody separately. Institutions will then model their specific notions of 
> accession and deaccession as combinations of these. 
> 
> Examples:  
> the delivery of the paintings by Secure Deliveries Inc. to the National 
> Gallery the return of Picasso’s “Guernica” to Madrid’s Prado in 1981 (Chipp, 
> 1988) 
> In First Order Logic: 
> E10(x) ⊃ E7(x) 
> 
> Properties: 
> P28 custody surrendered by (surrendered custody through): E39 Actor 
> P29 custody received by (received custody through): E39 Actor 
> P30 transferred custody of (custody transferred through): E18 Physical Thing
> 
> NEW scope note
> E10 Transfer of Custody 
> Subclass of:  E7 Activity 
> 
> Scope note:   This class comprises transfers of the physical custody, or the 
> legal responsibility for the physical custody, of objects. The recording of 
> the donor or recipient is optional. It is possible that in an instance of E10 
> Transfer of Custody there is either no donor or no recipient. Depending on 
> the circumstances it may describe: 
> 
> 1. the beginning of custody (there is no previous custodian)
> 2. the end of custody (there is no subsequent custodian)
> 3. the transfer of custody (transfer from one custodian to the next)
> 4. the receipt of custody from an unknown source (the previous custodian is 
> unknown)
> 5. the declared loss of an object (the current or subsequent custodian is 
> unknown)
> 
> In the event that only a single kind of transfer of custody, either the legal 
> responsibility for the custody or the actual physical possession of the 
> object but not both, this difference should be expressed using the property 
> P2 has type (is type of).  A specific case of transfer of custody is theft. 
> The sense of physical possession requires that the object of custody is in 
> the hands of the keeper at least with a part 

Re: [Crm-sig] E-Vote ( Issue 508 ): First Order Logic Representation of p170

[Øyvind Eide]

YES

Øyvind

> Am 06.10.2020 um 14:04 schrieb George Bruseker :
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> In the last SIG, the issue of the accuracy of the FOL representation of P170 
> defines time (time is defined by) was raised in issue 508 
> . A better FOL 
> representation was sought for. MD was assigned the HW. 
> 
> The previous state was:
> 
> P170 defines time (time is defined by)
> Domain: E61Time Primitive
> Range: E52 Time Span
> Quantification: many to one (0,1:0,n )
> 
> Scope note: This property associates an instance of E61 Time 
> Primitive with the instance of E52 Time-Span that constitutes the 
> interpretation of the terms of the time primitive as an extent in absolute, 
> real time.
> 
> Examples:
> ▪(1800/1/1 0:00:00 – 1899/31/12 23:59:59)(E61) defines time The 19th 
> century (E52)
> ▪(1968/1/1 – 2018/1/1)(E61) defines time “1968/1/1 – 2018/1/1” (E52) 
> [an arbitrary time-span during which the Saint Titus reliquary was present in 
> the Saint Titus Church in Heraklion, Crete]
> 
> In First Order Logic:
>P170(x,y) ⇒ E61(x)
>P170(x,y) ⇒ E52(y)
> 
> It is proposed to introduce:
> 
>  P170(x,y) ⇒ P81(y,x) ˄ P82(y,x)
> 
> Meaning: the respective time-span is exactly ongoing and within the given 
> time primitive.
> 
> Please vote on this change. Options: Yes, Yes with Caveat, No with 
> Explanation, to this list.
> 
> The vote should be received by Oct 16, 2020. 
> 
> Thank you for your effort.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Bruseker
> Vice Chair CIDOC CRM SIG
> 
> ___
> 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] [CRMarchaeo] E-vote for the label of A1 Excavation Process Unit

[Øyvind Eide]

YES

> Am 26.04.2020 um 19:52 schrieb Bekiari Chryssoula :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Following the decisions of the last crm-sig (46th CIDOC CRM), we invite you 
> to vote if you accept the proposed label change of A1 Excavation Process Unit 
>  to A1 Excavation Processing Unit.
> 
> PLEASE VOTE : 
> 
> YES for accepting, 
> 
> NO for not accepting, 
> 
> by May 7  2020. 
> 
> all the best 
> 
> Chryssoula
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] HW ISSUE 438, No E18 IsA E92

[Øyvind Eide]

Thank you, Martin! It makes sense to me.

One small detail I did not notice before (it was there all the time) in one of 
the E92 examples: 

"the spatio-temporal trajectory of the H.M.S. Victory from its building to its 
actual location”

the last part of the sentence indicates that ”its actual location” ends the 
space time volume and also, it focuses on space more than time. I would suggest 
to make it clearer by changing the example working to:

"the spatio-temporal trajectory of the H.M.S. Victory from its building; the 
space time volume will continue to grow(?) until the future destruction of the 
ship”

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 27.01.2020 um 19:07 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Here my complete attempt to implement breaking the IsA between physical 
> things and spacetime volumes. In the attached, the change tracking describes 
> all changes between the previous version and the new one I could think of.
> 
> It implements the decisions of the last SIG Meeting.
> 
> In yellow are marked some properties that may have an added spatiotemporal 
> formalization about the presence of parts.
> 
> 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_v6.2.7_Issue438.docx>___
> 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] Membership PLEASE VOTE

[Øyvind Eide]

YES.

Øyvind

> Am 30.01.2020 um 18:27 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> We are glad to announce that Swiss Art Research Infrastructure (SARI) would 
> like to become member of CRM-SIG:
> 
> "The Swiss Art Research Infrastructure (SARI), hosted by the University of 
> Zurich and part of a
> national research infrastructure program, provides unified and mutual access 
> to collection data,
> research data, and digitized visual resources from museums, archives, 
> collections, as well as
> academic and public research institutes within a Linked Open Data network 
> using CIDOC-CRM. Its
> mission is to combine the unique scholarly expertise from specialized 
> research institutions beyond
> technical, linguistic, and institutional borders and to enhance the 
> visibility and accessibility of
> Switzerland’s valuable collections and research resources. Key projects 
> include Reference Data
> Models for CIDOC-CRM and semantic research portal for both holding and 
> research data based on
> CIDOC-CRM.
> We would like to express our vivid interest in formally becoming a member of 
> the CRM Special
> Interest Group (CRM-SIG) and to actively contribute to the further 
> development and adoption of
> CIDOC-CRM. The Swiss Art Research Infrastructure will be represented in the 
> CRM-SIG by Thomas
> 
> Hänsli (Managing Director) and Nicola Carboni (Semantic Architect)."
> 
> PLEASE VOTE YES or NO  by 13/2/2020
> 
> 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] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

Given this answer to E is part of documentation practice, could it be solved by 
double instantiation?

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber :
> 
> I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.
> 
> I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of 
> letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a 
> mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin 
> correspond to the authority of the Senate. These are obviously linguistic 
> objects that carry a narrower semantic meaning as defined in the scope note 
> for E37 Mark.
> 
> Ethan
> 
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson  > wrote:
>  
> 
> I think that I agree  To be clearer about the inheritance that we’re 
> discussing:
> 
>  
> 
> A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
> B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
> C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
> D) All Inscriptions are Marks
> E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
>  
> 
> I believe the question is whether the last two assertions above are accurate.
> 
>  
> 
> For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is not a Mark, as the symbolic 
> content is not related to the intents given in the scope note, and thus 
> either the scope note should be changed to remove the intents and be clearer 
> about the nature of the class, or Inscription should not be a subclass of 
> Mark.
> 
>  
> 
> For E, I would argue that if “short text” is included in the scope for the 
> Mark class, then there must be some Marks that are Linguistic Objects as 
> short text implies that the symbols encode some natural language. I think 
> that the scope note should be changed to remove “short text” to avoid this 
> issue. Marks should be explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if there is 
> a linguistic interpretation of the content, then they should instead be 
> Inscriptions.
> 
>  
> 
> Hope that clarifies!
> 
>  
> 
> Rob
> 
>  
> 
> From: Martin Doerr mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
> Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
> To: Robert Sanderson mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>>, 
> crm-sig mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Robert,
> 
>  
> 
> Yes, that is a good question!
> 
> For a very long time, we had no feedback to this part f the CRM.
> 
>  
> 
> Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a Mark is also a Linguistic 
> Object, then it is in particular an Inscription.
> 
> But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions.
> 
>  
> 
> However, we must take care that the "non-Inscription marks" are not separated 
> out as complement, because following all the discussions we had in the past, 
> there are enough marks cannot be clearly distinguished from inscriptions.
> 
>  
> 
> So, the scope not should admit the existence of marks in this wider sense, 
> which are not the codified monograms etc.
> 
>  
> 
> isn't it?
> 
>  
> 
> best,
> 
>  
> 
> martin
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all,
> 
>  
> 
> I’m happy with the changes (modulo one typo, below), but would propose also 
> that there should be clarification about the inclusion of “short texts” in a 
> class that does not inherit from Linguistic Object. It seems strange to me 
> that Mark would include “Made by RS in 1780”, when that is clearly text with 
> a language. That would, IMO, need to be E37 Inscription if we wanted to talk 
> about the content / meaning, rather than just the visual appearance of some 
> symbols. Yet the scope note for Mark makes assertions about the intent, which 
> implies a semantic understanding of the language encoded by the symbols.
> 
>  
> 
> Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of Mark, that means that all 
> inscriptions are also Marks, and thus all inscriptions are to indicate the 
> creator, owner, dedications, purpose etc.  Either the  “etc” covers all 
> intents (at which point it is a worthless clause) or there are some texts 
> that are inscribed on objects that do not count as inscriptions.
> 
> One of the examples for Inscription is “Kilroy was here” … that does not seem 
> to fall under the definition of Mark, given the intent clause. Similarly the 
> “Keep off the grass” sign example is to instruct the students of Balliol to 
> not walk on the lawn. That seems very different from a Mark … yet it is one?
> 
>  
> 
> Finally, I think there is a minor typo in the new sentence. I think it should 
> read:  … as they are used to codify the marks in reference documents …
> 
> (or something like that)
> 
>  
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
>  
> 
> Rob
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Crm-sig  
>  on behalf of Martin Doerr 
>  
> Date: Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM
> To: crm-sig  
> Subject: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE P114-P120 VOTE

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin and Christian-Emil,

thanks for the explanations and reminders of past discussions. On this basis I 
vote: YES.

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 12.01.2020 um 20:33 schrieb Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
> :
> 
> ​Dear all,
> It may seem very dramatic to move the  P114-P120 to CRMarcheo. It is not 
> These properties correspond more or less to the Allen operators which are not 
> always ideal. Several years ago the SIG introduced the following alternatives:
> 
> P173 starts before or at the end of (ends with or after the start of): E2 
> Temporal Entity
> P174 starts before (starts after the start of): E2 Temporal Entity
> P175 starts before or with the start of (starts with or after the start of) : 
> E2 Temporal Entity
> P176 starts before the start of (starts after the start of): E2 Temporal 
> Entity
> P182 ends before or at the start of (starts with or after the end of) : E2 
> Temporal Entity
> P183 ends before the start of (starts after the end of) : E2 Temporal Entity
> P184 ends before or with the end of (ends with or after the end of) : E2 
> Temporal Entity
> P185 ends before the end of (ends after the end of): E2 Temporal Entity
> 
> ​These eight properties are superproperties of the P114-P120 as shown below.  
> The original idea (when P173-P185 where introduced, entirely  was to 
> deprecate the P114-P120.  However,  it is too radical to simply remove them 
> as the two comments in this email exchange show.  Since they are considered 
> useful in archaeology the idea is to put them there.
> 
> Best,
> Christian-Emil
> 
> 
> 
> P173  starts before or with the end of (ends after or with the start of)  
>
> P119i -   is met in time by  
> P174  -   starts before the end of (ends after the start of) 
> P118i  --   is overlapped in time by
> P134   --   continued (was continued by)E7 Activity <-> E7 
> Activity
> P175   --   starts before or with the start of (starts after or with the 
> start of)  
> P176   --   -   starts before the start of (starts after the start of) 
> P115i  --   -   -   is finished by
> P117i  --   -   -   includes  
> P118   --   -   -   overlaps in time with (is overlapped in time by) 
> P182   --   -   -   ends before or at the start of (starts after or with 
> the end of)
> P119   --   -   -   -   meets in time with (is met in time by)
>  
> P183   --   -   -   -   ends before the start of (starts after the end 
> of) 
> P120  --   -   -   -   -   occurs  before (occurs  after)
> P116  --   -   starts (is started by)
> P114  --   -   is equal in time to
> P184  --   ends before or with the end of (ends with or after the end of) 
> 
> P114  --   -   is equal in time to
> P115  --   -   finishes (is finished by)   
> P185  --   -   ends before the end of (ends after the end of)
> P116  --   -   -   starts (is started by)   
> P117  --   -   -   occurs during (includes)   
> P182  --   -   -   ends before or at the start of (starts after or with 
> the end of)
> P118  --   -   -   overlaps in time with (is overlapped in time by) 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Francesco Beretta 
> 
> Sent: 12 January 2020 11:54
> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE P114-P120 VOTE
>  
> Dear Martin and Christian-Emil,
> 1. is there any replacement foreseen for these quite useful properties in 
> CRMbase ?
> 2. for the sake of clear documentation and legacy the vote proposal should be 
> associated with the list and links to the correspondent issues, shouldn't it ?
> 3. I'm quite in favour of this vision of a core (CRMbase) and extensions (the 
> family) but shouldn't we start working on a clear formalization of this 
> integration (cf. e.g. the TEI) – or is this already done and I just don't 
> know where to find it ?
> 4. One aspect of this task is to have a consistent URI definitions and 
> dereferencing for CRMbase and family and their different versions.
> 
> I think point 1 and 2 should be clarified to the voters before we vote. Just 
> avoir B..x.. situations.
> 
> All the best
> Francesco
> 
> Le 12.01.20 à 11:13, Martin Doerr a écrit :
>> Dear All, 
>> 
>> If you agree that 
>> 
>> "the following Allen's temporal relations should be deprecated in the 
>> CRMbase and reappear in CRMarcheo: 
>> 
>> P114 is equal in time to 
>> P115 finishes (is finished by) 
>> P116 starts (is started by) 
>> P117 occurs during (includes) 
>> P118 overlaps in time with (is overlapped in time by) 
>> P119 meets in time with (is met in time by) 
>> P120 occurs before (occurs after)" 
>> PLEASE VOTE "YES" 
>> otherwise "NO" 
>> Best, 
>> Martin 
>> 
>> On 1/12/2020 10:29 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: 
>>> Dear all, 
>>> In the October 2019 meeting in Iraklio, we did a general cleanup of the 
>>> 

Re: [Crm-sig] Siegfried Krause

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

very sad. Condolences to his family. I would also hope some official 
condolences would be possible. 

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 09.11.2019 um 22:11 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> It is with deep sorrow that I have to inform you about the sudden loss of Dr. 
> Siegfried Krause, IT Referent of the Germanische Nationalmuseum of Nuremberg 
> and longstanding member of CIDOC and CRM-SIG. He passed away this Friday, 
> Nov. 8 2019, in his home in the village Lyttos in Crete, suddenly without 
> previous illness, in the middle of an active life, just two weeks after 
> participating in the last CRM_SIG meeting in Heraklion.
> 
> We have Siegfried Krause in high esteem as a personal friend, a good 
> colleague and scholar. He was one of the founding members of the CIDOC CRM 
> Special Interest Group. We value his distinct contributions and his deep 
> understanding of the practical IT requirements of research in the 
> cultural-historical domain. 
> 
> His work substantially contributed to the quality and increasing application 
> the CIDOC CRM enjoys world-wide. He has translated the CIDOC CRM to German, 
> together with late Karl-Heinz Lampe and me. He has developed, together with 
> the University of Erlangen, one of the most important reference 
> implementations of the CIDOC CRM, the WissKi system, probably the first 
> Knowledge Representation platform that is in practice used for the integrated 
> management of multiple scholarly research projects from the beginning of the 
> research process and continues to be used. 
> 
> He was the local organizer of the CIDOC Annual Conference 1997, Nuremberg, 
> Germany and has been chair of the Semantic Research Environments Working 
> Group of CIDOC, which builds on the experience with the WissKi system. 
> Our team at ICS-FORTH has been enjoying a continued and intensive scientific 
> collaboration with Siegfried's team since the year 2000.
> 
> His sudden passing away constitutes a great loss, personally and 
> professionally, an interruption of promising activities, but before all a 
> great hardship for his family. 
> 
> Siegfried Krause had strong emotional ties to the island of Crete, beginning 
> as young archaeologist, and thus happened to end his life in an environment 
> he loved.
> 
> We offer our sincere condolences to his wife and his family,
> 
> Martin Doerr 
> 
> -- 
> 
>  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] ISSUE proposal to replace E18 isa E92 and E4 isa E92 with properties

[Øyvind Eide]

I will not be there either, and even if I love STVs to the extent that my home 
wifi is called SpaceTimeVolume, I full support this change and also support 
case 3. 

To me some of the quantifications looks in conflict with the text but this 
might be just my evening brain and even if I happen to be right I am sure the 
details will be checked at the meeting — if after the meeting they still look 
strange to me I will address the issue with specific questions.

Have a nice meeting!

Øyvind

> Am 15.10.2019 um 17:48 schrieb Robert Sanderson :
> 
>  
> As the spacetime volume that is Rob, and the spacetime volume that is the 
> next SIG meeting will unfortunately not intersect, I’d like to register my 
> full support for this change, including case 3 as the preferred solution, in 
> advance!
>  
> Rob
>  
> From: Crm-sig  > on behalf of Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
> mailto:c.e.s@iln.uio.no>>
> Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 1:19 AM
> To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr " 
> mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>
> Subject: [Crm-sig] ISSUE proposal to replace E18 isa E92 and E4 isa E92 with 
> properties
>  
> Dear all,
> 
> This email describes the issue of replacing the  E18 isa E92 Spacetime volume 
>  and E4 isa E92 Spacetime volume with properties. The main reason to do so is 
>  based on the observation that for most of the (potential) users of CRM it is 
> too abstract to identify a thing with its spacetime volume.
> 
>  
> 
> Below I start with a soft introduction and then present the issue(s). I have 
> given links to documents which can be downloaded. These are ppt with 4 
> possible cases (case 3 is what is suggested) and  concordance of the phrase 
> “spacetime volume” in the CRM document.
> 
>  
> 
>  ppt: http://www.edd.uio.no/nedlasting/cidoc-crm/STV_suggested_changes.ppt 
> 
> concordance: 
> http://www.edd.uio.no/nedlasting/cidoc-crm/kwic_spacetime_volume.txt 
> ​
> 
>  
> 
> Best,
> 
> Christian-Emil
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> The concept of spacetime volume is taken from physics. The idea is intuitive. 
>  Every physical thing has a volume, that is, occupies space (check your 
> cupboard).  When a cup is moved  in the kitchen its volume will move relative 
> to the kitchen floor and walls. Its place in the kitchen will depend on the 
> time of the day. If the cup’s movement is registered in a 3D model, say every 
> second , its whereabouts will look like some strange geometric figure. If the 
> cups movement from it production to it is broken beyond recognition by a 
> steamroller, this can also be a figure depending on time. So for any 
> identifiable thing there will be a unique volume from it gets it identity 
> until the identity is lost. This can be seen as a volume in a 4 dimensional 
> space (X,Y,Z,T),  that is, a 3D figure evolving over time. It should also be 
> evident that such a 4D volume is unique for a physical thing. Two things 
> describing the exact same volume during their lifetime can be considered the 
> same thing.
> 
>  
> 
> Instances of the class E92 Spacetime volume (STV among friends) are such 4 
> dimensional volumes.  It is a handy abstraction which makes it possible to 
> talk about a ship’s travel  etc.  The one to one relation between an 
> identifiable physical thing and a spacetime volume is the reason to make E18 
> Physical thing a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume, that is, every instance of 
> E18 Physical thing _is_ an instance of E92 Spacetime volume. However, 
> practical experience has shown that this is considered to be very abstract 
> for most users of CRM.  We have observed confusions and misinterpretations. 
> It is reported to be very difficult to teach CRM with this construct. It is 
> more intuitive to say that a physical thing has a spacetime volume than to 
> say that a physical thing is a spacetime volume. 
> 
>  
> 
> Proposal 1: Replace E18 isa E92 Spacetime volume with a property PXXX:
> 
>  
> 
> Pxxx has defining STV (is defining STV of)  
> 
> Domain:  E18 Physical Thing
> 
> Range: E92 Spacetime Volume
> 
> Quantification: one to one, necessary  (1,1:0,1)
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> In the current model we also have E4 Period isa E92 Spacetime volume. This is 
> more intuitive since something happening has a time and a place but no 
> physical substance. On the other hand, it is arguable that two events may 
> happen at the same time and same place. A simple example technical example 
> are instances of E8 Acquisition and E10 Transfer of Custody, which may happen 
> at the same time and place. More generally and perhaps more philosophically, 
> when documenting the past, it is not uncommon to interpret something happing 
> at a place and time as more than one event. If one accept this, then an 
> instance of E92 Spacetime 

Re: [Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Scope note and examples of E41 Appellation

[Øyvind Eide]

A not uncommon English translation of Frege’s Sinn und Bedeutung is sense and 
meaning... thus, talking about meaning independent from the reference function 
is confusing (even if it is done quite a bit, I know, and even if it in some 
contexts makes sense (macht es auch Sinn?)).

It can be explained, I just wonder if it is worth it when meaning is addressed 
later on. It would take some additional sentences to make it clear I think.

Regards,

Øyvind

> Am 13.10.2019 um 20:47 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Well, what is meant is "meaning as an expression independent from its use as 
> an appellation for a particular thing".
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 10/13/2019 2:30 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>> Dear Martin,
>> 
>> Just one small detail:
>> 
>>> This class comprises signs, either meaningful or not, or arrangements of 
>>> signs following a specific syntax, […]
>> Denotation is commonly connected to the concept of meaning. Thus, even if a 
>> place name is a series of sounds with no meaning as a word apart from the 
>> reference function as a place name, the denotation itself gives the 
>> appellation a certain kind of meaning.
>> 
>> As a discussion of meaning follows in the next paragraph anyway I suggest a 
>> change to:
>> 
>>> This class comprises signs or arrangements of signs following a specific 
>>> syntax, […]
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Øyvind
>> 
>>> On 12 Oct 2019, at 20:30, Martin Doerr  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> With the deletion of many subclasses of E41 Appellation here my suggestion 
>>> for adjustment:
>>> 
>>> NEW:
>>> 
>>> E41 Appellation
>>> 
>>> Subclass of: E90 Symbolic Object
>>> 
>>> Superclass of:  E35 Title
>>> 
>>> E42 Identifier
>>> 
>>>  Scope note: This class comprises signs, either meaningful or not, 
>>> or arrangements of signs following a specific syntax, that are used or can 
>>> be used to refer to and identify a specific instance of some class or 
>>> category within a certain context.
>>> 
>>>  Instances of E41 Appellation do not identify things by their meaning, even 
>>> if they happen to have one, but instead by convention, tradition, or 
>>> agreement. Instances of E41 Appellation are cultural constructs; as such, 
>>> they have a context, a history, and a use in time and space by some group 
>>> of users. A given instance of E41 Appellation can have alternative forms, 
>>> i.e., other instances of E41 Appellation that are always regarded as 
>>> equivalent independent from the thing it denotes.
>>> 
>>>  Even though instances of E41 Appellation are not words of a language, 
>>> different language groups may use different appellations for the same 
>>> thing, such as the names of major cities. Some appellations may be 
>>> formulated using a valid noun phrase of a particular language. In these 
>>> cases, the respective instances of E41 Appellation should also be declared 
>>> as instances of E33 Linguistic Object. Then the language group using the 
>>> appellation can be declared with the property P72 has language: E56 
>>> Language.
>>> 
>>>  Instances of E41 Appellation may be used to identify any instance of E1 
>>> CRM Entity and sometimes are characteristic for instances of more specific 
>>> subclasses E1 CRM Entity, such as for instances of E52 Time-Span (for 
>>> instance “dates”), E39 Actor, E53 Place or E28 Conceptual Object. Postal 
>>> addresses and E-mail addresses are characteristic examples of identifiers 
>>> used by services transporting things between clients.
>>> 
>>>  Even numerically expressed identifiers in continua are also regarded as 
>>> instances of E41 Appellation, such as Gregorian dates or  spatial 
>>> coordinates, even though they allow for determining the time or spot or are 
>>> they identify by a known procedure starting from a reference point and by 
>>> virtue of that play a double role as instances of E59 Primitive Value.
>>> 
>>>  E41 Appellation should not be confused with the act of naming something. 
>>> Cf. E15 Identifier Assignment
>>> 
>>> Examples:
>>> 
>>> §  "Martin"
>>> 
>>> §  "the Forth Bridge"
>>> 
>>> §  "the Merchant of Venice" (E35) (McCullough, 2005)
>>> 
>>> §  "Spigelia

Re: [Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Scope note and examples of E41 Appellation

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

Just one small detail: 

> This class comprises signs, either meaningful or not, or arrangements of 
> signs following a specific syntax, […]

Denotation is commonly connected to the concept of meaning. Thus, even if a 
place name is a series of sounds with no meaning as a word apart from the 
reference function as a place name, the denotation itself gives the appellation 
a certain kind of meaning.

As a discussion of meaning follows in the next paragraph anyway I suggest a 
change to:

> This class comprises signs or arrangements of signs following a specific 
> syntax, […]

All the best,

Øyvind

> On 12 Oct 2019, at 20:30, Martin Doerr  wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> With the deletion of many subclasses of E41 Appellation here my suggestion 
> for adjustment:
> 
> NEW:
> 
> E41 Appellation
> 
> Subclass of: E90 Symbolic Object
> 
> Superclass of:  E35 Title
> 
> E42 Identifier
> 
>  
> Scope note: This class comprises signs, either meaningful or not, or 
> arrangements of signs following a specific syntax, that are used or can be 
> used to refer to and identify a specific instance of some class or category 
> within a certain context.
> 
>  
> Instances of E41 Appellation do not identify things by their meaning, even if 
> they happen to have one, but instead by convention, tradition, or agreement. 
> Instances of E41 Appellation are cultural constructs; as such, they have a 
> context, a history, and a use in time and space by some group of users. A 
> given instance of E41 Appellation can have alternative forms, i.e., other 
> instances of E41 Appellation that are always regarded as equivalent 
> independent from the thing it denotes.
> 
>  
> Even though instances of E41 Appellation are not words of a language, 
> different language groups may use different appellations for the same thing, 
> such as the names of major cities. Some appellations may be formulated using 
> a valid noun phrase of a particular language. In these cases, the respective 
> instances of E41 Appellation should also be declared as instances of E33 
> Linguistic Object. Then the language group using the appellation can be 
> declared with the property P72 has language: E56 Language.
> 
>  
> Instances of E41 Appellation may be used to identify any instance of E1 CRM 
> Entity and sometimes are characteristic for instances of more specific 
> subclasses E1 CRM Entity, such as for instances of E52 Time-Span (for 
> instance “dates”), E39 Actor, E53 Place or E28 Conceptual Object. Postal 
> addresses and E-mail addresses are characteristic examples of identifiers 
> used by services transporting things between clients.
> 
>  
> Even numerically expressed identifiers in continua are also regarded as 
> instances of E41 Appellation, such as Gregorian dates or  spatial 
> coordinates, even though they allow for determining the time or spot or are 
> they identify by a known procedure starting from a reference point and by 
> virtue of that play a double role as instances of E59 Primitive Value.
> 
>  
> E41 Appellation should not be confused with the act of naming something. Cf. 
> E15 Identifier Assignment
> 
> Examples:  
> 
> §  "Martin"
> 
> §  "the Forth Bridge"
> 
> §  "the Merchant of Venice" (E35) (McCullough, 2005)
> 
> §  "Spigelia marilandica (L.) L." [not the species, just the name] 
> (Hershberger, Jenkins and Robacker, 2015)
> 
> §  "information science" [not the science itself, but the name through which 
> we refer to it in an English-speaking context]
> 
> §  “安” [Chinese “an”, meaning “peace”]
> 
> §  “6°5’29”N 45°12’13”W”
> 
> §  “Black queen’s bishop 4” [chess coordinate][MD1] 
> 
> §  “1900”
> 
> §  “4-4-1959”
> 
> §  “19-MAR-1922”
> 
> §  “19640604”[MD2] 
> 
> §  “+41 22 418 5571”
> 
> §  wea...@paveprime.com[MD3] 
> 
> §  “Vienna”
> 
> §  “CH-1211, Genève”
> 
> §  “Aquae Sulis Minerva”
> 
> §  “Bath”
> 
> §  “Cambridge”
> 
> §  “the Other Place”
> 
> §  “the City”[MD4] 
> 
> §  “1-29-3 Otsuka, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 121, Japan”
> 
> §  “Rue David Dufour 5, CH-1211, Genève”[MD5] 
> 
> §  “the entrance lobby to the Ripley Center”
> 
> §  “the poop deck of H.M.S Victory”
> 
> §  “the Venus de Milo’s left buttock”
> 
> §  “left inner side of my box”
> 
> §  “the entrance lobby to the Ripley Center”
> 
> §  “the poop deck of H.M.S Victory”
> 
> §  “the Venus de Milo’s left buttock”
> 
> §  “left inner side of my box”[MD6] 
> 
> §   
> 
>  
> In First Order Logic:
> 
>E41(x) ⊃ E90(x)
> 
>  
>  
>  [MD1]Transfer of examples from deprecated E47
> 
>  [MD2]Transfer of examples from E50 Date
> 
>  [MD3]Transfer of examples from E51 Contact Point
> 
>  [MD4]Transfer of examples from E44 Place Appellation
> 
>  [MD5]Transfer of examples from E54 Address
> 
>  [MD6]Transfer of examples from E46 Section definition
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>  Dr. Martin Doerr
>   
>  Honorary Head of the

Re: [Crm-sig] PLEASE VOTE: Issue Man-Made

[Øyvind Eide]

Yes.

Øyvind

> Am 24.04.2019 um 22:11 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All
> 
> The proposal is to replace in all CRM labels "Man-Made" by "Human-Made"
> 
> Please vote "YES" if you agree, "NO" if not,
> 
> by: Mai 10, 2019
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> 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] Changes in natural language

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

The discussion of man or human is connected to a larger discussion about 
changes in natural language.

CRM is meant to have a long life span. Thus, it will see a number of changes in 
the technologies and artificial languages in which it is expressed, as we 
discuss regularly, and which we generally adopt to outside the standard itself.

But CRM also makes an anchoring to the human lifeworld through natural 
languages. The meaning of those languages change over time. We might argue 
whether the meaning of man in English has changed the last decades or not, but 
the fact that words change remains. Two examples from my own lifetime:

”Lap” used to be a neutral scholarly and general term for what is now called 
”Sami.” Today ”Lap” is more or less exclusively used as a derogatory term.

Until a few decades ago a German term ”Fräulein” referred to an unmarried 
woman. Today it is never used, at least among the people I meet. I naturally 
refer to 17 year old female students as ”Frau.” My using ”Fräulein” would at 
best be seen as a misplaced attempt to be funny or a mistake from an uninformed 
foreigner. 

This means that over some decades the natural language text of CRM will change 
even if the characters remain the same. Furthermore, we cannot know which words 
will fare as ”Lap” and ”Fräulein” did. Thus, I suggest that we will, from time 
to time, come in situations where we have to change the wording of the 
standard. CRM is, after all, not a novel which should be read in its original 
language form.

While the case of man vs. human can be attributed to the somewhat unclear term 
”political correctness,” others cases will not. They will just be examples of 
words changing meaning or ceasing to be part of one of the natural languages in 
which CRM is expressed. 

In most cases this will occur in places where it does not matter much, but from 
time to time it might also happen to labels. This is a cost of using natural 
language (which we have to) and of the long time span of the CRM (which is one 
of the points with the whole thing).

All the best,

Øyvind

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

I support the change and would also like to point out that this is a local 
problem with the English language. For instance, in most other Germanic 
languages the distinction is clear, such as in German: Mann / Mensch or in 
Scandinavian where we have various versions of mann / menneske.

As for the specific label to be chosen, I leave that for the native English 
speakers. 

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 12.04.2019 um 13:45 schrieb George Bruseker :
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I think there is a distinction to be made in the question of whether the 
> language is in fact biased and whether it is perceived as biased. While I 
> would agree with Pierre that there are arguments to be made that it is not in 
> fact exclusive language in principle (and valid counterarguments to be sure), 
> it is in fact taken by many as being biased and exclusive. This in itself 
> makes it exclusive and this is unnecessary and unwanted.
> 
> Since a label in the ontology is just a label, and our intention with the 
> label in this case is to give a heuristic to the ontology user in order to 
> point towards non-naturally generated objects (man made object as we have 
> said to now), I think that dropping 'man' from 'man made', does not impede 
> this functionality.
> 
> Removing this part of the label, however, can remove an unintended impression 
> of gender bias. This seems to be a functional gain that is compatible with 
> the spirit of CIDOC CRM (view neutral by nature).
> 
> Between 'made' and 'human made', I would lean to the latter. 'Made Object' is 
> already at the limit of understandability in English (it also has some 
> unintended connotations of Mafia language). I think maybe 'human made', while 
> sounding awkward in present day English, may be the direction that everyday 
> language will go anyhow. 'Humankind' sounds very natural and more inclusive 
> than 'mankind' certainly. The adjectival form will also follow.
> 
> Another concern is how problematic would the translation be. Checking the 
> translations I could find, I did not find a major problem, but it is 
> something to take into consideration.
> 
> A serious technical and cost concern for users of CRM would be that existing 
> data encoded with the old URIs will now be incompatible with this new label. 
> That is a significant trade off.
> 
> Finally, there is another class (E24) that includes man made. Added below.
> 
> E22 Ανθρωπογενές Αντικείμενο
> E24 Ανθρωπογενές Υλικό Πράγμα
> E25 Ανθρωπογενές Μόρφωμα
> E71 Ανθρωπογενές Δημιούργημα
> 
> E22-人造物件 (Man-Made Object)
> E24-人造实体物 (Physical Man-Made Thing)
> E25-人造外貌表征 (Man-Made Feature)
> E71-人造物 （Man-Made Thing）
> 
> 
> E71 Künstliches
> E22 Künstlicher Gegenstand
> E24 Hergestelltes
> E25 Hergestelltes Merkmal
> 
> I, in any case, think it is probably worth making the change -unless the 
> costs to users in real terms is exorbitant - since the existing label can be 
> perceived to be biased and this is wholly unintended by the community which 
> aims to be both neutral and inclusive.
> 
> Best,
> 
> George
> 
> On 2019-04-12 14:23, Dominic Oldman wrote:
>> I strongly agree with Florian.
>> It is simply right to make these changes.
>> D
>> -
>> FROM: Crm-sig  on behalf of Florian
>> Kräutli 
>> SENT: 12 April 2019 11:35
>> TO: Pierre Choffé; Athanasios Velios; crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> SUBJECT: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove
>> "Man-"
>> Dear Pierre and all,
>> I strongly disagree. This is not about the origins of the word but of
>> its usage and meaning in present day. The CRM should reflect
>> (changing) knowledge contexts and we as a community should react to
>> and respect developments in the world, and not decide based on our
>> personal opinions about them.
>> I think this should be put up as an issue and I would vote in favour
>> of either suggestion: dropping ‘man’ or replacing it with
>> ‘human’.
>> Best,
>> Florian
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:13 PM +0200, "Pierre Choffé"
>>  wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our
>>> times and most people (including me) generally avoid getting
>>> involved in such discussions - especially on social media where you
>>> would immediately get drowned in a flood of insults - and the result
>>> is that we have a feeling of consensus on the matter.
>>> Now, we as a community might have a different point of view,
>>> starting with the knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man"
>>> (please consult the wikipedia page [2] for a brief introduction).
>>> Can we please avoid this kind of discussions and leave it to Twitter
>>> and Facebook ?
>>> Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feeling
>>> excluded here ?)
>>> Have a nice day,
>>> Pierre
>>> On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 11:2 AM, Athanasios Velios
>>> mailto:a.vel...@arts.ac.uk>> wrote:
 I support the change of the English labels to:
 E22 Made Object
 E25 Made Feature
 E71 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE E34 PLEASE VOTE

[Øyvind Eide]

Yes.

Øyvind

> Am 10.04.2019 um 21:12 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> The current scope not of E34 include a reference to the deprecated E84:
> 
> OLD
> E34 Inscription
> 
> Subclass of: E33  Linguistic Object
> 
> E37  Mark
> 
>  
> Scope note: This class comprises recognisable, short texts attached 
> to instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing.
> 
>  
> The transcription of the text can be documented in a note by P3 has note: E62 
> String. The alphabet used can be documented by P2 has type: E55 Type. This 
> class does not intend to describe the idiosyncratic characteristics of an 
> individual physical embodiment of an inscription, but the underlying 
> prototype. The physical embodiment is modelled in the CRM as E24 Physical 
> Man-Made Thing.
> 
> The relationship of a physical copy of a book to the text it contains is 
> modelled using E84 Information Carrier. P128 carries (is carried by): E33 
> Linguistic Object.
> 
>  
> Examples:  
> 
> §  “keep off the grass” on a sign stuck in the lawn of the quad of Balliol 
> College
> 
> §  The text published in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum V 895
> 
> §  Kilroy was here
> 
>  
> In First Order Logic:
> 
>E34(x) ⊃ E33(x)
> 
>E34(x) ⊃ E37(x)
> 
> NEW:
> 
> Replace:
> 
> The relationship of a physical copy of a book to the text it contains is 
> modelled using E84 Information Carrier. P128 carries (is carried by): E33 
> Linguistic Object.
> 
> by:
> 
> The relationship of a physical copy of a book to the text it contains is 
> modelled using E22 Man-Made Object. P128 carries (is carried by): E33 
> Linguistic Object.
> 
> PLEASE VOTE "Yes" if you agree with the change by April 19.
> 
> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] New issue: Missing inverse of P189 PLEASE VOTE

[Øyvind Eide]

Yes; good you spotted it!

Regards,

Øyvind

> Am 05.04.2019 um 22:32 schrieb Robert Sanderson :
> 
> In case it wasn’t obvious, a definite YES from me ☺
>  
> Rob
>  
> From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 
> 
> Date: Friday, April 5, 2019 at 9:06 AM
> To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New issue: Missing inverse of P189 PLEASE VOTE
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> It's an oversight indeed! 
>  
> PLEASE VOTE YES, if you agree with P189 approximates (is approximated by).
>  
> Martin
>  
> On 4/5/2019 6:51 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>  
> Dear all,
>  
> In the 6.2.4 PDF, there isn’t a definition of the inverse property of P189 
> approximates.  One would imagine P189i is approximated by.
>  
> Given that the relationship has a direction (A approximates B), and in Geo 
> this would be between Declarative and Phenomenal Places, this seems like an 
> oversight? Or am I missing something about the relationship that means an 
> inverse is not necessary?
>  
> Many thanks!
>  
> Rob
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] New Member PLEASE VOTE

[Øyvind Eide]

I vote YES.

Regards,

Øyvind

> Am 25.11.2018 um 15:21 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> The engineering company Decalog would like to become an official member of 
> the CRM-SIG.
> 
> They provide software services to manage and expose their collections to 
> French museum, libraries and many other prominent institutions in 
> French-speaking countries. "Decalog Flora" has been chosen by the French 
> Ministry of Culture to equip the network of national museums.
> 
> For this purpose, normalization of the data model is one of their key 
> priorities, in order to improve the interoperability and the efficiency of 
> their systems. They have started to align their data model with the CIDOC CRM.
> 
> Decalog will be represented by Karl Pineau, member of ICOM, research engineer 
> at Decalog and PhD student in information sciences and ontology management at 
> the University of Technologies of Compiegne.
> 
> I propose to welcome Decalog and Karl as new member of CRM-SIG.
> 
> PLEASE VOTE by Dec. 7 2018
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] HW Issue 277

[Øyvind Eide]

Thanks for this!

Some small comments and questions below. 

> Am 22.11.2018 um 21:19 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> Here my modifications:
> 
> About Types
> 
> Virtually all structured descriptions of museum objects begin with a unique 
> object identifier and information about the "type" of the object, often in a 
> set of fields with names like "Classification", "Category", "Object Type", 
> "Object Name", etc. All these fields are used for terms that declare that the 
> object belongs to a particular category of items.
> 
Would ”category of things” be better English?

> In the CRM the class E55 Type comprises such terms from thesauri and 
> controlled vocabularies used to characterize and classify instances of CRM 
> classes.  Instances of E55 Type represent concepts (universals) in contrast 
> to instances of E41 Appellation, which are used to name instances of CRM 
> classes.
> 
> For this purpose the CRM provides two basic properties that describe 
> classification with terminology, corresponding to what is the current 
> practice in the majority of information systems. The class E1 CRM Entity is 
> the domain of the property P2 has type (is type of), which has the range E55 
> Type. Consequently, every class in the CRM, with the exception of E59 
> Primitive Value, inherits the property P2 has type (is type of).  This 
> provides a general mechanism for simulating a specialization of the 
> classification of CRM instances to any level of detail, by linking to 
> external vocabulary sources, thesauri, classification schema or ontologies.
> 
> Analogous to the function of the P2 has type (is type of) property, some 
> properties in the CRM are associated with an additional property. These are 
> numbered in the CRM documentation with a ‘.1’ extension. The range of these 
> properties of properties always falls under E55 Type. Their purpose is to 
> simulate a specialization of their parent property through the use of 
> property subtypes declared as instances of E55 Type. They do not appear in 
> the property hierarchy list but are included as part of the property 
> declarations and referred to in the class declarations. For example, P62.1 
> mode of depiction: E55 Type is associated with E24 Physical Man-made Thing. 
> P62 depicts (is depicted by): E1 CRM Entity.
> 
>  The class E55 Type also serves as the range of properties that relate to 
> categorical knowledge commonly found in cultural documentation. For example, 
> the property P125 used object of type (was type of object used in) enables 
> the CRM to express statements such as “this casting was produced using a 
> mould”, meaning that there has been an unknown or unmentioned object, a 
> mould, that was actually used. This enables the specific instance of the 
> casting to be associated with the entire type of manufacturing devices known 
> as moulds. Further, the objects of type “mould” would be related via P2 has 
> type (is type of) to this term. This indirect relationship may actually help 
> in detecting the unknown object in an integrated environment. On the other 
> side, some casting may refer directly to a known mould via P16 used specific 
> object (was used for).  So a statistical question to how many objects in a 
> certain collection are made with moulds could be answered correctly 
> (following both paths through P16 used specific object (was used for) - P2 
> has type (is type of) and P125 used object of type (was type of object used 
> in). This consistent treatment of categorical knowledge enhances the CRM’s 
> ability to integrate cultural knowledge.
> 
>  Types, that is, instances of E55 Type and its subclasses, can be used to 
> characterize the instances of a CRM class and hence refine the meaning of the 
> class.  A type ‘artist’ can be used to characterize persons through P2 has 
> type (is type of).  On the other hand, in an art history application of the 
> CRM it can be adequate to extend the CRM class E21 Person with a subclass 
> E21.xx Artist. What is the difference of the type ‘artist’ and the class 
> Artist? From an everyday conceptual point of view there is no difference. 
> Both denote the concept ‘artist’ and identify the same set of persons. Thus 
> in this setting a type could be seen as a class and the class of types may be 
> seen as a metaclass.  Since current systems do not provide an adequate 
> control of user defined metaclasses, the CRM prefers to model instances of 
> E55 Type as if they were particulars, with the relationships described in the 
> previous paragraphs.
>  Users may decide to implement a concept either as a subclass extending the 
> CRM class system or as an instance of E55 Type. A new subclass should only be 
> created in case the concept is sufficiently stable and associated with 
> additional explicitly modelled properties specific to it. Otherwise, an 
> instance of E55 Type provides more flexibility of use. Users that may want to 
> describe a discourse not only 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: representing compound name strings

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

this is how the TEI would do it: 
http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ND.html#NDPER

So something like:

His Majesty Dr. Snoopy Hickup Miller 
Jr

But one would need guidelines, esp. for the type attribute. In TEI everything 
can be done, and in several ways...

Regards,

Øyvind

> Am 21.11.2018 um 23:11 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear Richard,
> 
> XML is even better. The distinction between XML tags and MARC subfield 
> markers is not so substantial. An XML file is still a string. The question is 
> about RDF, putting a compound into rdfs:Literal. 
> So, again, is there a good practice with XML elements 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 11/21/2018 6:58 PM, Richard Light wrote:
>> 
>> On 15/11/2018 21:28, Martin Doerr wrote:
>>> Dear All, 
>>> 
>>> I would expect that the library or archival community do have a good 
>>> practice how to "squeeze" a compound name, such as : 
>>> "His Majesty Dr. Snoopy Hickup Miller Jr", with respective separators, in a 
>>> machine readable string, that could be used as custom datatype in an 
>>> rdfs:Literal as one instance of Appellation, rather than defining all 
>>> possible name constituents as individual rdf properties. 
>>> 
>>> Could be a MARC string? XML? TEI? 
>>> 
>>> This would be very helpful for our users. 
>> Martin,
>> 
>> I'm pretty sure that the most recent attempt at doing this will be the 
>> subfield markers ($a, etc.) in MARC. which date from the era of punched 
>> cards.  The requirement that all of the name appears in a single string will 
>> rule out anything that might have been done in XML (where you might 
>> typically use attributes or subelements) or TEI (which is, after all, simply 
>> an XML application).
>> 
>> It's a nice idea, which follows the approach of encoding one 'compound' 
>> value as a single string, but I don't think we will find a ready-made 
>> standard for it.
>> 
>> Richard
>> 
>>> 
>>> Best, 
>>> 
>>> Martin 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Richard Light
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] PLEASE VOTE :deprecating P149

[Øyvind Eide]

Yes.

Øyvind

> Am 15.11.2018 um 15:15 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Since E75 Conceptual Object Appellation has been deprecated, we have to 
> deprecate P149 as well:
> 
> P149 is identified by (identifies)
> 
> Domain:  E28  Conceptual 
> Object
> 
> Range:E75  Conceptual 
> Object Appellation
> 
> Subproperty of:   E1  CRM Entity. P1 
>  is identified by (identifies): E41 
>  Appellation
> 
> Quantification:many to many (0,n:0,n)
> 
>  Scope note: This property identifies an instance of E28 Conceptual 
> Object using an instance of E75 Conceptual Object Appellation.
> 
> Examples: §  The German edition of the CIDOC CRM (E73) is identified by ISBN 
> 978-3-00-030907-6 (E75)
>  
> PLEASE VOTE : YES for Deprecating, NO for not deprecating, by Nov. 23 2018.
> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 345, P59 needs change

[Øyvind Eide]

This looks good to me.

Øyvind

> Am 15.11.2018 um 15:43 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Since E46 Section Definition has been deprecated, we need to change the scope 
> note of P59:
> 
> P59 has section (is located on or within)
> 
> Domain:  E18  Physical Thing
> 
> Range:E53  Place
> 
> Quantification:   one to many (0,n:0,1)
> 
>  Scope note: This property links an area to the instance of E18 
> Physical Thing upon which it is found.
> 
>  It is typically used when a named E46 Section Definition is not appropriate.
> 
> E18 Physical Thing may be subdivided into arbitrary regions.
> 
> P59 has section (is located on or within) is a shortcut. If the E53 Place is 
> identified by a Section Definition, a more detailed representation can make 
> use of the fully developed (i.e. indirect) path from E18 Physical Thing 
> through P58 has section definition, E46 Section Definition, P87 is identified 
> by E44 Place Appellation. A Place can only be located on or within one 
> Physical Object.
> 
> Examples:  
> 
> §  HMS Victory (E22) has section HMS Victory section B347.6 (E53)
> 
> New Scope note:
> 
> "This property links an area, i.e., an instance of E53 Place to the instance 
> of E18 Physical Thing upon which it is found. This area may either be 
> identified by a name, or by a geometry in terms of a coordinate system 
> adapted to the shape of the respective instance of E18 Physical Thing. 
> Typically, names identifying sections of physical objects are composed of the 
> name of a kind of part and the name of the object itself, such as "The poop 
> deck of H.M.S. Victory", which is composed of "poop deck" and "H.M.S. 
> Victory". "
> 
> 
> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] PLEASE VOTE (deprecating P58, issue 345)

[Øyvind Eide]

Yes.

Øyvind

> Am 15.11.2018 um 15:24 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Since E46 Section Definition has been deprecated, we have to deprecate P58 as 
> well:
> 
> P58 has section definition (defines section)
> Domain:  E18  Physical Thing
> Range:E46  Section 
> Definition
> 
> Quantification:one to many, dependent, (0,n:1,1)
> 
> Scope note: This property links an area (section) named by a E46 
> Section Definition to the instance of E18 Physical Thing upon 
> which it is found.
> The CRM handles sections as locations (instances of 
> E53 Place) within or on E18 Physical Thing that are identified by 
> E46 Section Definitions. Sections need not be discrete and 
> separable components or parts of an object.
> This is part of a more developed path from ‘E18 
> Physical Thing’ through ‘P58 has section definition’, ‘E46 Section
>Definition, P87 is identified by, E44 Place 
> Appellation that allows a more precise definition of a location found on an   
>   object than the shortcut P59 has section (is 
> located on or within).
> 
> A particular instance of a Section Definition only 
> applies to one instance of Physical Thing.
> 
> Examples:   
> 
> §  HMS Victory (E22) has section definition “poop deck of HMS Victory” (E46)
>  
> PLEASE VOTE : YES for Deprecating, NO for not deprecating, by Nov. 23 2018.
> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Parent of F4 Manifestation Singleton

[Øyvind Eide]

Well, performances are usually not part of library or museum collections. The 
theatre museums I have worked with collect artefacts, texts, stage models etc. 
etc. but not performances. They do collect traces of performances though: 
reviews, programmes, posters, stage drawings, costumes, video recordings etc.

But once an information system is created the performances find their natural 
place there. As they do in CRM and FRBR. 

Another thing is the performative aspects of art forms traditionally not seen 
as performative, such as literature. As far as I know this is still a disputed 
area. 

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 18.09.2018 um 11:54 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear George,
> 
> How nice! 
> 
> I believe the concept of "Expression" as something permanent, i.e., the FRBR 
> concept of it, actually confuses the problem. "Expression" is to my 
> understanding a process, an activity, and only in a second meaning the 
> product. I do not see any difference to lots of best singers of the world 
> performing in their bath rooms. 
> 
> What is the point in knowing the absolutely greatest work of art? A Zen 
> master was asked what the most valuable thing in the world is. He answered: 
> the head of a dead cat. Why? because nobody would give a price for it...;-)
> 
> We have discussed the "Expression Creation", the actually genuine Expression, 
> as a process of externalization, and attempt to communicate something.  I'd 
> say  things become culturally relevant by their social impact, and that is 
> what we document.
> 
> If we would generalize over that, the result of an "Expression Creation" 
> would be anything left on another carrier, be it in the heart of an audience, 
> or on paper, or any other form. If the identity condition of such an 
> Expression Creation is in the intention, carriers lost in the process as in 
> your example would qualify. On the other side, if someone is eavesdropping on 
> the bathroom song, we may even then talk of an Expression, or? Then, the 
> "creation" part is more specific, and may be incidental or accidentally 
> flawed.
> 
> Anyway, I think this view would greatly simplify things.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/17/2018 10:49 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
>> I had this reference in mind, which I’ve been looking for for a long time:
>> 
>> https://books.google.gr/books?id=8Nbqn-7RKpYC=PA93=PA93=woolfe+artist+napkin+water+painted+word=bl=NLFB8BL-w9=7HX0xB1GSR_l9D6TgsSKRCFoHyc=en=X=2ahUKEwicu8WI58LdAhURaVAKHWZKBmoQ6AEwFXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage=woolfe%20artist%20napkin%20water%20painted%20word=false
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. George Bruseker
>> R & D Engineer
>> 
>> Centre for Cultural Informatics
>> Institute of Computer Science
>> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
>> Science and Technology Park of Crete
>> Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
>> 
>> Tel.: +30 2810 391619   Fax: +30 2810 391638   E-mail: bruse...@ics.forth.gr 
>> 
>> URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl 
>> 
>>> On Sep 17, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Martin Doerr >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 9/16/2018 3:49 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
 Hi Thanasis,
 
 Yes I would take it that that was the intention of the authors. Scribbling 
 your master piece in water on the back of a torn napkin or so. So I would 
 agree that the language should probably change to reflect that.
>>> Indeed, there are lots of inscriptions, texts written in notebooks etc. 
>>> Need not be so exotic. Probably many manuscripts are not exclusive to one 
>>> carrier.
>>> 
>>> But we have to check if in LRMoo it is already obsolete.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Martin
 
 Cheers,
 
 George
 
 
 --
 Dr. George Bruseker
 R & D Engineer
 
 Centre for Cultural Informatics
 Institute of Computer Science
 Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
 Science and Technology Park of Crete
 Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
 
 Tel.: +30 2810 391619   Fax: +30 2810 391638   E-mail: 
 bruse...@ics.forth.gr 
 URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl 
 
> On Sep 10, 2018, at 3:53 PM, Athanasios Velios  > wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I looked through the mailing list archive but could not find an answer 
> for:
> 
> Why is F4 Manifestation Singleton a child of E24 and not a child of E22?
> 
> Its scope note starts with: 

Re: [Crm-sig] New Membership PLEASE VOTE

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

yes, of course!

Øyvind

> On 17 Jul 2018, at 18:49, Martin Doerr  wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> We are very pleased to propose the following new membership:
> 
> Dariush Alimohammadi, PhD, Head of the Information Science Department at the 
> Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran asks us for joining CIDOC CRM SIG as an 
> institutional member, with personal representative Miss. Massoomeh Niknia, 
> PhD Student in his department. 
> 
> She was a visiting scholar at the Koeln University; where she did part of her 
> PhD thesis under the guidance of Dr. Øyvind Eide. Dr. Hamid Jamali and is her 
> supervisor and Dariush Alimohammadi and Dr. Eide are her co-supervisors. 
> Massoomeh has made valuable contributions in CIDOC and presented work in the 
> CRM-SIG meeting in January 2018 in Cologne.
> 
> PLEASE VOTE by July 25.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Martin 
> 
> -- 
> --
>  Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
>  Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
>|  Email: 
> mar...@ics.forth.gr
>  |
>  |
>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   |
>  |
>  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] Workshop in Teheran

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear colleagues,

Though Massoomeh Niknia’s contacts in Iran we have to possibility to organise a 
CRM workshop and other digital cultural heritage meetings in Teheran, probably 
early/mid next years.

Could those of you who are in principle interested in taking part write to me 
directly? Then we will see what we can organise with our colleagues there and 
get more details about the visit.

Kind regards,

Øyvind

[Crm-sig] Issue 334 Homework

[Øyvind Eide]

> It is assigned to the Oyvind to investigate if it could expressed the 
> following phrase without the use of the term “unambiguously”  in the scope 
> note of I9 Citation : “in which the interpretation of the source is 
> formulated as a set of formal propositions or regarded to be unambiguously 
> given in a natural language form.”

Suggested new first sentence: ”This class comprises beliefs in the correct 
reading or scholarly interpretation of the overt message intended by an 
instance of E73 Information Object (“source”), in which the interpretation of 
the source is clearly expressed, for instance in the form of a set of formal 
propositions.”

Original scope note:
I9 Citation

Subclass of:   I8 Conviction

Superclass of:

Scope note:This class comprises beliefs in the correct reading or 
scholarly interpretation of the overt message intended by an instance of E73 
Information Object (“source”), in which the interpretation of the source is 
formulated as a set of formal propositions or regarded to be unambiguously 
given in a natural language form. An instance of I9 Citation implies believing 
the authenticity of the respective instance of E73 Information Object relative 
to an explicitly stated provenance, but does not mean believing the respective 
propositions. Rather, the truth of the cited message is subject of another 
scholarly interpretation process. It further does not pertain to arguing about 
hidden or cryptic meanings of a source, which is subject of yet another 
scholarly interpretation process.

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E74 Group (from LRMoo discussions)

[Øyvind Eide]

But nations are much more than democratic nation-states. What about small 
nations steered by consensus, clan based nations, national with a significant 
number of political decisions based on referendum? What about nations/countries 
where voting is obligatory and it is a criminal offence not to vote?

Based on an open world assumption I find it hard to say that no nation can ever 
show collective agency.

All the best,

Øyvind

> On 9 May 2018, at 08:40, Pat Riva  wrote:
> 
> ​Each individual in a democratic nation can choose to vote (or not).
> Then the elected government (an LRM-E8 Collective agent) takes actions and is 
> responsible, not all those people holding that citizenship.
> 
> Pat Riva
> Associate University Librarian, Collection Services
> Concordia University
>  
> Vanier Library (VL-301-61)
> 7141 Sherbrooke Street West
> Montreal, QC H4B 1R6
> Canada
> +1-514-848-2424 ext. 5255
> pat.r...@concordia.ca
> From: Conal Tuohy 
> Sent: May 9, 2018 1:43 AM
> To: Pat Riva
> Cc: CRM-SIG
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E74 Group (from LRMoo discussions)
>  
> 
> 
> On 7 May 2018 at 14:27, Pat Riva  wrote:
> Propose to modify the scope note of E74 Group so that it clearly corresponds 
> to LRM-E8 Collective Agent. To do this any groups of people not having 
> agency, such as national, religious, cultural, ethnic groups, must be 
> excluded from the scope of E74.
> This strikes me as odd! Is it really true that the citizenry of a nation is 
> entirely lacking in agency? Can they not take political decisions, for 
> instance?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Conal Tuohy
> http://conaltuohy.com/
> @conal_tuohy
> +61-466-324297
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment

[Øyvind Eide]

> Am 23.03.2018 um 20:26 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear Florian,
> 
> This is what I meant by "in general".
> 
> I propose to reformulate:
> 
> Therefore the use of E13 Attribute Assignment marks the fact, that the 
> maintaining team is either neutral to the validity of the respective 
> assertion or has another opinion about it, but registers another ones opinion 
> and how it came about.

Therefore the use of E13 Attribute Assignment makes the point that the 
maintaining team is either neutral to the validity of the respective assertion 
or has another opinion about it. What they register is somebody else's opinion 
and how it came about.

Ciao,

Øyvind

> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 3/20/2018 11:04 AM, Florian Kräutli wrote:
>> Dear Martin,
>> 
>> many thanks for this! I would change, or remove, this part
>> 
>>  "[...] marks the fact, that the maintaining team is in general neutral 
>> to the validity of the respective assertion [...]"
>> 
>> We see a good use-case for E13 in recording information that is wrong, or 
>> information that once used to be thought correct. For example, an artefact 
>> that was once thought to have been produced by Person A, but later it 
>> emerged that it was made by Person B. In such cases, we want to record the 
>> first piece of information using E13, along with its source, to indicate 
>> that we are aware of it and to allow people to find it even when they search 
>> based on outdated knowledge. We as the maintaining team are therefore not 
>> neutral to the validity of the assertion.
>> 
>> All best,
>> 
>> Florian
>> 
>>> From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 
>>> 
>>> Date: Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:05 PM
>>> To: crm-sig 
>>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E13 Attribute Assignment
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Here the old scope note:
>>> E13 Attribute Assignment
>>> Subclass of: E7 Activity
>>> Superclass of:  E14 Condition Assessment
>>> E15 Identifier Assignment
>>> E16 Measurement
>>> E17 Type Assignment
>>> 
>>> Scope note: This class comprises the actions of making assertions 
>>> about properties of an object or any relation between two items or concepts.
>>> 
>>> This class allows the documentation of how the respective assignment came 
>>> about, and whose opinion it was. All the attributes or properties assigned 
>>> in such an action can also be seen as directly attached to the respective 
>>> item or concept, possibly as a collection of contradictory values. All 
>>> cases of properties in this model that are also described indirectly 
>>> through an action are characterised as "short cuts" of this action. This 
>>> redundant modelling of two alternative views is preferred because many 
>>> implementations may have good reasons to model either the action or the 
>>> short cut, and the relation between both alternatives can be captured by 
>>> simple rules.
>>> 
>>> In particular, the class describes the actions of people making 
>>> propositions and statements during certain museum procedures, e.g. the 
>>> person and date when a condition statement was made, an identifier was 
>>> assigned, the museum object was measured, etc. Which kinds of such 
>>> assignments and statements need to be documented explicitly in structures 
>>> of a schema rather than free text, depends on if this information should be 
>>> accessible by structured queries.
>>> =
>>> Here my new proposed scope note:
>>> 
>>> E13 Attribute Assignment
>>> Subclass of: E7 Activity
>>> Superclass of:  E14 Condition Assessment
>>> E15 Identifier Assignment
>>> E16 Measurement
>>> E17 Type Assignment
>>> 
>>> Scope note: This class comprises the actions of making assertions 
>>> about properties of an object or any relation between two items or 
>>> concepts. The type of the property asserted to hold between two items or 
>>> concepts can be described by the property P2 has type.
>>> 
>>> This class allows for the documentation of how the respective assignment 
>>> came about, and whose opinion it was. Note that all instances of properties 
>>> described in a knowledge base are the opinion of someone. Per default, they 
>>> are the opinion of the team maintaining the knowledge base. This fact must 
>>> not individually be registered for all  instances of properties provided by 
>>> the maintaining team, because it would result in an endless recursion of 
>>> whose opinion was the description of an opinion. Therefore the use of E13 
>>> Attribute Assignment marks the fact, that the maintaining team is in 
>>> general neutral to the validity of the respective assertion, but registers 
>>> another ones opinion and how it came about.
>>> 
>>> All properties assigned in such an action can also be seen as directly 
>>> relating the respective pair of items or concepts. Multiple use of E13 
>>> Attribute Assignment may possibly lead to a collection of contradictory 
>>> values. 

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: CRMsoc and scope of CRM modules

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin, and all,

> Am 10.01.2018 um 21:21 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I propose to withdraw the decision to put the plans model into CRM "base".
> The Model becomes very unwieldy now.
> 
> I propose to create a CRMsoc (social), with
> all plans, rights, norms, laws, business transactions, social relations and 
> their detailed temporal modelling.

Maybe this could be a place to include historical accounting as well?

> 
> I propose to withdraw the decision to put "Observation" into CRMbase.
> A proper handling of Observation needs a model of an observed Situation, with 
> adequate
> constraints for the things and relationships that can be observed.
> I propose to keep Observation in CRMSci. To be clarified how the 
> stratification with CRMInf is achieved.
> 
> I propose to give up the condition that CRMbase keeps exclusively all 
> superproperties necessary to reach all elements in
> a CRM compatible graph.
> I propose to allow extensions, with "special mark-up and permission", to 
> explicitly declare additional superproperties, as few
> as possible, and clearly justified by a distinct subject.
> 
> Temporality of relationships appears to be a topic with a set of distinct 
> ontological patterns, which need to be considered separately.
> Depending on the pattern, it should be decided into which module an explicit 
> description of a temporal validity of a relationship
> will belong, regardless if the "time agnostic" version exists in CRMbase.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> -- 
> --
> Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
> Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
>   |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
> |
>   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   |
> |
> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 295 homework

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin, and all,

it looks good to me. Given the deprecation of E84 it could be nice to add a 
sentence to the scope note of E24, something like:

”Instances of this class can act as carriers of instances of E73 Information 
Object.”

Regards,

Øyvind

> Am 04.01.2018 um 18:39 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Here my proposals:
> "ISSUE 295
> 
> Following Martin’s proposal to remove class E84 since it does not satisfy the 
> requirements proposed on issue 340, the sig proposed the examples of material 
> carrier of a digital object to be moved to E24 of an E25 digital feature and 
> possibly to E78 οr put example for E78 of Server holding Digital Asset 
> Management.
> 
> Finally, the sig asked Martin to make an example. The issue will be complete 
> with examples. It is decided to be created a new issue for covering the 
> discussion about  E84 staying or going"

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: label of inverse property notation PLEASE VOTE

[Øyvind Eide]

A

> Am 04.01.2018 um 16:31 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> Should we change in the CRM definition text together with the "i" for inverse 
> also the order of the two labels?:
> e.g.:
> 
> A) P73 has translation (is translation of) => P73i is translation of​ (has 
> translation)
> OR
> B) P73 has translation (is translation of) => P73i has translation (is 
> translation of) ?
> 
> PLEASE VOTE A or B.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
>  -- 
> --
>  Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
>  Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
>|  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr 
>  |
>  |
>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   |
>  |
>  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

Re: [Crm-sig] Issuse 260 -- homeworks

[Øyvind Eide]

> Am 19.12.2017 um 12:10 schrieb Richard Light :
> 
> 
>> Introducing a class for context sounds strange to me as it would indicate 
>> that the rest is context-free. Still, it could make sense in order to have a 
>> possibility to make context explicit in the cases we need to.
>> 
> Surely the statements which we make with the CRM are themselves the 'context' 
> for individual assertions?  If so, we have our context already, and don't 
> need to invent an artificial mechanism to express it.

I would say ONE context, not THE context. The assertions often come from 
somewhere, loosing one context and adding a new one, the two being more or less 
similar. 

Granted, the original context is often lost already when the data was entered 
into a database, long before it was expressed in CRM.

A series of de/re-contextualisations…

Regards,

Øyvind

> 
> Richard
> On 18/12/2017 10:05, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>> 
>>> Am 15.12.2017 um 10:53 schrieb Martin Doerr >> <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>:
>>> 
>>> On 3/26/2017 9:29 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>>>> Dear Martin,
>>>> 
>>>> this is dangerous territory. Do we need to go there? We may have to open 
>>>> up all sorts of boxes including those owned by language philosophers and 
>>>> semioticians. 
>>>> 
>>>> An utterance is made by someone, surely. But is a title an utterance? It 
>>>> is not purely either or, but is it not more langue than parole? 
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue_and_parole 
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue_and_parole>
>>>> 
>>>> I think one can find many different views on what information is in the 
>>>> humanities and many of them would be quite different from Shannon. 
>>>> Personally, I think thinking based on dialogism makes a lot of sense. 
>>>> 
>>>> Do we have to enter this territory? Do we need to express opinions on 
>>>> these things in CRM? 
>>> Dear Øyvind,
>>> 
>>> Clearly, one principle of the CRM is, never interpret a term! So, we are 
>>> not concerned settling disputes about what information or an utterance is. 
>>> We are concerned with the consistency and effectiveness of definitions for 
>>> our information purposes. So, for me the problem is a simple question of 
>>> disambiguation of identity.
>>> 
>>> Since you wrote (and I agree) "E35 Title can only be used when such a 
>>> string is actually are used as a title" this implies that (a) the same 
>>> string may be used twice as a title and (b) translates differently in these 
>>> cases. 
>>> 
>>> This means, that the identity of the title as described above consists of 
>>> the string + context. Otherwise, the scope note is inconsistent.
>>> This context can either be determined as (1) language, (2) one work of art, 
>>> (3) multiple works of art intentionally referring to the same source - F1 
>>> Work or
>>> "loans" from other F1 Work.
>>> 
>>> This creates a precedent with respect to identity of information. Equally 
>>> obviously, if we create in the CRM an identifier for "mehr Licht" by 
>>> Goethe, true or not, and want to trace arguments about the interpretation 
>>> and reality in an information system, we must, if we want or not, carry the 
>>> context with us. So, we have two choices: Either we keep the identity of an 
>>> E73 provenance independent, and introduce another class for information 
>>> object use context, or we imply a concept of provenance as part of the 
>>> identity of the information object. 
>>> 
>>> Equally obviously, it is impossible in general to trace exact provenance. 
>>> We could, however, in the scope note, describe the context concept behind 
>>> an information object in a more general way, which implies specialization 
>>> from case to case.
>>> 
>>> A relevant application are tombstone and other short inscriptions. 
>>> Epigraphy experts regard the same text on another stone as different.
>>> 
>>> We may even talk about two message levels. For instance "r.i.p." as a 
>>> generic message in the tombstone context, and "r.i.p." as a personal 
>>> message on a 
>>> particular tombstone. 
>>> 
>>> Or we say r.i.p. to the issue;-)
>> 
>> Indeed, Martin. I see your arguments, and hopefully understand them in the 
>> right context. 
>> 
>> As Hirst pointed out,

Re: [Crm-sig] Issuse 260 -- homeworks

[Øyvind Eide]

> Am 15.12.2017 um 10:53 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> On 3/26/2017 9:29 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>> Dear Martin,
>> 
>> this is dangerous territory. Do we need to go there? We may have to open up 
>> all sorts of boxes including those owned by language philosophers and 
>> semioticians. 
>> 
>> An utterance is made by someone, surely. But is a title an utterance? It is 
>> not purely either or, but is it not more langue than parole? 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue_and_parole 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue_and_parole>
>> 
>> I think one can find many different views on what information is in the 
>> humanities and many of them would be quite different from Shannon. 
>> Personally, I think thinking based on dialogism makes a lot of sense. 
>> 
>> Do we have to enter this territory? Do we need to express opinions on these 
>> things in CRM? 
> Dear Øyvind,
> 
> Clearly, one principle of the CRM is, never interpret a term! So, we are not 
> concerned settling disputes about what information or an utterance is. We are 
> concerned with the consistency and effectiveness of definitions for our 
> information purposes. So, for me the problem is a simple question of 
> disambiguation of identity.
> 
> Since you wrote (and I agree) "E35 Title can only be used when such a string 
> is actually are used as a title" this implies that (a) the same string 
> may be used twice as a title and (b) translates differently in these cases. 
> 
> This means, that the identity of the title as described above consists of the 
> string + context. Otherwise, the scope note is inconsistent.
> This context can either be determined as (1) language, (2) one work of art, 
> (3) multiple works of art intentionally referring to the same source - F1 
> Work or
> "loans" from other F1 Work.
> 
> This creates a precedent with respect to identity of information. Equally 
> obviously, if we create in the CRM an identifier for "mehr Licht" by Goethe, 
> true or not, and want to trace arguments about the interpretation and reality 
> in an information system, we must, if we want or not, carry the context with 
> us. So, we have two choices: Either we keep the identity of an E73 
> provenance independent, and introduce another class for information object 
> use context, or we imply a concept of provenance as part of the identity of 
> the information object. 
> 
> Equally obviously, it is impossible in general to trace exact provenance. We 
> could, however, in the scope note, describe the context concept behind an 
> information object in a more general way, which implies specialization from 
> case to case.
> 
> A relevant application are tombstone and other short inscriptions. Epigraphy 
> experts regard the same text on another stone as different.
> 
> We may even talk about two message levels. For instance "r.i.p." as a generic 
> message in the tombstone context, and "r.i.p." as a personal message on a 
> particular tombstone. 
> 
> Or we say r.i.p. to the issue;-)

Indeed, Martin. I see your arguments, and hopefully understand them in the 
right context. 

As Hirst pointed out, context is a spurious concept. We need some, we never 
need (or can have) all, and the border between the two is unsharp. 

Is this not also the trade-off of information integration in general, and where 
we disagree with the semantic web community (a sentence that should have had a 
lot of qualification)? Because we know that the dream of a decontextualised 
emerging network of useful information is just a dream, at least for cultural 
history and the humanities. Still, we also know that if we let ourselves tie 
down to traditional levels of context we are lost and will never be able to 
integrate something.

Introducing a class for context sounds strange to me as it would indicate that 
the rest is context-free. Still, it could make sense in order to have a 
possibility to make context explicit in the cases we need to.

Regards,

Øyvind

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> martin
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Øyvind
>> 
>>> 24. mar. 2017 kl. 12.50 skrev martin  
>>> <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>:
>>> 
>>> Dear Oeyvind,
>>> 
>>> I agree with the scope note, given the interpretation we decided. I wonder 
>>> however if there is a
>>> deeper issue here:
>>> 
>>> In Germany there exists the saying that dying Goethe uttered "mehr Licht" 
>>> ("more light"). I reused this proposition yesterday, because I wanted to 
>>> read a newspaper.
>>> 
>>> Claude Shannon defined information as a message with

[Crm-sig] Fwd: [GeoHumanities SIG] ADHO Linked Open Data SIG Reactivation

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear colleagues,

this should be of some interest to our community too. They ask, among other 
things, for standardisation…

Regards,

Øyvind

> Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
> 
> On 11/1/17, 8:34 PM, "lod-boun...@lists.digitalhumanities.org on behalf of 
> Robert Warren"  rwarr...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> 
>After a hiatus of some years, the ADHO Linked Open Data Special Interest 
> Group is being reactivated under the joint leadership of trouble makers Molly 
> Hardy and Rob Warren.
> 
>The original mission of the ADHO Linked Open Data (LOD) SIG was "to bridge 
> between the DH community and the semantic web community of practice, 
> encouraging and facilitating the interconnection and interoperability of open 
> online Humanities resources, by raising awareness of new developments (both 
> content and technology) and discussing and developing best practices".
> 
>So far the adoption of Linked Open Data (LOD) has been modest in the DH 
> community. It still shows promise as a means of publishing and exchanging 
> data between projects and the creation of ontologies using semantic web 
> standards as a means of communicating complex abstractions and negotiating 
> areas of consensus merits further study.
> 
>Some of the obstacles that are ongoing include poor user and 
> developer-oriented tools, lack of standardization within domains of study, 
> concerns over the applicability of discrete ontologies to complex humanities 
> discourse and limited 'clean' data sources with which to begin publication.
> 
>This list is not exhaustive and additions are welcome.
> 
>Please join us on the LOD SIG mailing list for further discussions about 
> moving things forward. Submissions can be made to 
> lod@lists.digitalhumanities.organd list registration can be made at 
> http://lists.lists.digitalhumanities.org/mailman/listinfo/lod
> 
>Yours truly,
>Rob Warren and Molly Hardy
>Joint LODSIG Propagandists
>___
>Lod mailing list
>l...@lists.digitalhumanities.org
>http://lists.lists.digitalhumanities.org/mailman/listinfo/lod
> 

[Crm-sig] SIG meeting in Cologne

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

the next SIG meeting will take place in Cologne from January 15-18 (Monday to 
Thursday). The exact location is at the Humanwissenschaftliche campus of the 
University of Cologne: https://lageplan.uni-koeln.de/#!221 


Due to other (less important) events in Cologne the same week there may be a 
shortage of hotel beds. Thus I would suggest that you:

- consider booking early rather than later
- consider nearby cities — this area has a larger population density than the 
Netherlands so the commute between cities takes less time than one often can 
experience within larger cities. 

For example, in Bonn there are several hotels close to the stations Bad 
Godesberg Bahnhof and Bonn Hauptbahnhof.
IntercityHotel Bonn is relatively new and has good reviews. It is next to 
Hauptbahnhof (which means you are sleeping next to the station).
Another good option is Günnewig Hotel Bristol Bonn by Centro, close to 
Hauptbahnhof. 
Günnewig Hotel Residence by Centro, 2 minutes walk to Hauptbahnhof.
Even Düsseldorf is less than an hour away by public transport. 

Thanks to Zoe Schubert (cc here) for digging up information, if you have any 
question please get in touch with her and/or me. 

We are looking forward to meeting you in Cologne!

Regards,

Øyvind

Re: [Crm-sig] Seminar: digital museum documentation

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

thanks a lot for this info! It was exactly what I was hoping for. 

Then I can advise my colleagues that this would make sense as an entry level 
presentation, given their willingness to pay the bill.

Thanks to you too Franco for the digging on a Sunday morning.

Kind regards,

Øyvind

> 9. jul. 2017 kl. 11.58 skrev Martin Stricker :
> 
> Marco is a respected professional who works for the cultural heritage 
> digitisation programme of city/state Berlin, he is an active member in 
> working groups LIDO-Terminology and AG Datenaustausch (German Museum 
> Association), teaches and promotes CIDOC CRM quite enthusiastically, and he 
> is one of the few here who really gets its potential. 
> 
> He also can be contacted directly: 
> https://www.servicestelle-digitalisierung.de/digis/team/ 
> <https://www.servicestelle-digitalisierung.de/digis/team/>
> 
>> Am 09.07.2017 um 10:12 schrieb Øyvind Eide > <mailto:lis...@oeide.no>>:
>> 
>> Dear all, but especially those of you who can read German,
>> 
>> a colleague sent me information about a seminar about digital museum 
>> documentation run by Marco Klindt. Does anyone know about this person?
>> 
>> https://www.xing.com/events/digitale-museumsdokumentation-1792509?sc_o=events_events_near_you
>>  
>> <https://www.xing.com/events/digitale-museumsdokumentation-1792509?sc_o=events_events_near_you>
>> 
>> I was surprised to see a lot of general computer science standards but no 
>> mentioning of any domain standards or methods, neither CIDOC standards and 
>> guidelines or anything else.
>> 
>> So if anybody knows about this person or the organisation behind him it 
>> would be good to know if this is just an attempt to drain museums of 
>> resources or if it is serious at any level.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Øyvind
>> ___
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 
> --
> 
> Martin Stricker M.A.
> Coordination Centre for Scientific University Collections in Germany
> 
> Hermann von Helmholtz-Zentrum für Kulturtechnik
> Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
> Unter den Linden 6
> 10099 Berlin
> Germany
> 
> Phone +49 (0)30 2093 12879 
> stric...@wissenschaftliche-sammlungen.de 
> <mailto:stric...@wissenschaftliche-sammlungen.de> 
> http://www.wissenschaftliche-sammlungen.de 
> <http://www.wissenschaftliche-sammlungen.de/>

[Crm-sig] Seminar: digital museum documentation

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all, but especially those of you who can read German,

a colleague sent me information about a seminar about digital museum 
documentation run by Marco Klindt. Does anyone know about this person?

https://www.xing.com/events/digitale-museumsdokumentation-1792509?sc_o=events_events_near_you

I was surprised to see a lot of general computer science standards but no 
mentioning of any domain standards or methods, neither CIDOC standards and 
guidelines or anything else.

So if anybody knows about this person or the organisation behind him it would 
be good to know if this is just an attempt to drain museums of resources or if 
it is serious at any level.

Kind regards,

Øyvind

[Crm-sig] Request for use cases: Iconography in art history

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

I have received a request for information about projects using CIDOC-CRM to 
express assertions about iconography connected to paintings and other art 
objects. Thus, it is about what is depicted, as well as the carriers of the 
depictions, in the context of art history iconography. 

Also fringe or uncertain pointers are welcome. 

All the best,

Øyvind

Re: [Crm-sig] Issuse 260 -- homeworks

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

this is dangerous territory. Do we need to go there? We may have to open up all 
sorts of boxes including those owned by language philosophers and semioticians. 

An utterance is made by someone, surely. But is a title an utterance? It is not 
purely either or, but is it not more langue than parole? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue_and_parole

I think one can find many different views on what information is in the 
humanities and many of them would be quite different from Shannon. Personally, 
I think thinking based on dialogism makes a lot of sense. 

Do we have to enter this territory? Do we need to express opinions on these 
things in CRM? 

Regards,

Øyvind

> 24. mar. 2017 kl. 12.50 skrev martin :
> 
> Dear Oeyvind,
> 
> I agree with the scope note, given the interpretation we decided. I wonder 
> however if there is a
> deeper issue here:
> 
> In Germany there exists the saying that dying Goethe uttered "mehr Licht" 
> ("more light"). I reused this proposition yesterday, because I wanted to read 
> a newspaper.
> 
> Claude Shannon defined information as a message with a known provenance, 
> which is the most accepted theory in computer science.
> 
> That would mean that the identity of an Information Object is a tuple 
> , rather than .
> 
> If we accept that, we enter another hell of arguments about what the identity 
> of the sender is. That is easy for a Title, but quite tricky for the 
> non-smoking symbol.
> 
> Question: Should we touch also this front, or are we sure that "more light" 
> is always "more light" ?
> 
> In other words, may be a title actually deviates from an appellation in that 
> it adds to its identity the provenance, which in turn allows for translation?
> 
> best,
> 
> martin
> 
> On 24/3/2017 11:45 πμ, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Here is my homework for Issue 260:
>> 
>> 1. E35: Accepted the comment made by Oyvind that the scope note of E35 Title 
>> is misleading, since it refers to something functioning a title, not having 
>> the form of a title, it is decided to keep the Title, to update scope note. 
>> This HW is assigned to Oyvind
>> 
>> I have changed the first paragraph of the scope note
>> 
>> Old scope note for E35:
>> 
>>> This class comprises the names assigned to works, such as texts, artworks 
>>> or pieces of music.
>>>  Titles are proper noun phrases or verbal phrases, and should not be 
>>> confused with generic object names such as “chair”, “painting” or “book” 
>>> (the latter are common nouns that stand for instances of E55 Type). Titles 
>>> may be assigned by the creator of the work itself, or by a social group.
>>>  This class also comprises the translations of titles that are used as 
>>> surrogates for the original titles in different social contexts.
>> Proposed new version:
>> 
>> “This class comprises textual strings that within a cultural context can be 
>> clearly identified as titles due to their form. Being a subclass of E41 
>> Appellation, E35 Title can only be used when such a string is actually are 
>> used as a title of a work, such as a text, an artwork, or a piece of music.
>> 
>> Titles are proper noun phrases or verbal phrases, and should not be confused 
>> with generic object names such as “chair”, “painting” or “book” (the latter 
>> are common nouns that stand for instances of E55 Type). Titles may be 
>> assigned by the creator of the work itself, or by a social group.
>>  This class also comprises the translations of titles that are used as 
>> surrogates for the original titles in different social contexts.”
>> 
>> —
>> 
>> 2. E49 Time Appellation: to keep but it should be merged with Date and it 
>> should be decided if they keep the same name (Oyvind)
>> 
>> E50 Date should be marked obsolete. I have changed the inheritance, the 
>> first paragraph of the scope note, and added two examples.
>> 
>> Old definition of E49 Time Appellation:
>> 
>>> Subclass of : E41 Appellation
>>> Superclass of: E50 Date
>>> 
>>> Scope Note:
>>> 
>>> This class comprises all forms of names or codes, such as historical 
>>> periods which are characteristically used to refer to a specific E52 
>>> Time-Span. This includes human- and machine readable dates and timestamps.
>>>  The instances of E49 Time Appellation may vary in their degree of 
>>> precision, and they may be relative to other time frames, “Before Christ” 
>>> for example. Instances of E52 Time-Span are often defined by re

[Crm-sig] HF issue 307

[Øyvind Eide]

(This was sent in February but did not make it to some or all of you — 
apologies if it is a repetition)

The 37th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 30th  
 FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed and accepted the 
proposed scope note of E16 Measurement  and asked Oyvind to provide examples 
for image and symbolic object e.g. word count of the crm based on the pdf of 
CRM 5.0  

Berlin, December 2016

Example 1:

The pixel size of the jpeg version of Titian’s painting Bacchus and Ariadne 
from 1520–3, as freely downloadable from the National Gallery in London’s web 
page  
is 581600 pixels.

Example 2:

The scope note of E21 Person in the Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual 
Reference Model Version 5.0.4 as downloaded from 
 
consists of 77 words.

Kind regards,

Øyvind

Re: [Crm-sig] An interesting case of rights to think about..

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Athina,

I have not moved beyond the article (thanks for posting it, it is a very useful 
addition to other complex land right issues!) but by reading that it seems like 
the river has the right of a legal person, not an individual. Is that right? If 
so, the river can be seen as an organisation, in line with the (and connected 
to) a group of people (the Whanganui iwi). Or it can be seen as an organisation 
connected to the two guardians, who will speak on behalf of the legal person 
(the river).

Can this be seen as similar to, for instance, a trust? Then a lawyer appointed 
to speak on behalf of the trust would be in line with the two guardians of the 
river. 

All the best,

Øyvind

> On 20 Mar 2017, at 12:57, athinak  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> relating to the rights triangle P75,P104, P105 we proposed, here is an 
> interesting case of right holding: 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-river-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being.
> The approach of the tribe is unique: the river is granted legal rights as 
> human-being; can we apply this (rights possessed by river?) in the model? is 
> there a possibility to find an equivalence between human's behavior and a 
> behavior of a phenomenon and in what way? is there a generalization missing?
> think about this,
> BRs
> 
> Athina Kritsotaki
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Issuse 260 -- homeworks

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

Here is my homework for Issue 260:

1. E35: Accepted the comment made by Oyvind that the scope note of E35 Title is 
misleading, since it refers to something functioning a title, not having the 
form of a title, it is decided to keep the Title, to update scope note. This HW 
is assigned to Oyvind

I have changed the first paragraph of the scope note

Old scope note for E35:

> This class comprises the names assigned to works, such as texts, artworks or 
> pieces of music. 
>  
> Titles are proper noun phrases or verbal phrases, and should not be confused 
> with generic object names such as “chair”, “painting” or “book” (the latter 
> are common nouns that stand for instances of E55 Type). Titles may be 
> assigned by the creator of the work itself, or by a social group. 
>  
> This class also comprises the translations of titles that are used as 
> surrogates for the original titles in different social contexts.

Proposed new version:

“This class comprises textual strings that within a cultural context can be 
clearly identified as titles due to their form. Being a subclass of E41 
Appellation, E35 Title can only be used when such a string is actually are used 
as a title of a work, such as a text, an artwork, or a piece of music. 

Titles are proper noun phrases or verbal phrases, and should not be confused 
with generic object names such as “chair”, “painting” or “book” (the latter are 
common nouns that stand for instances of E55 Type). Titles may be assigned by 
the creator of the work itself, or by a social group. 

This class also comprises the translations of titles that are used as 
surrogates for the original titles in different social contexts.”

—

2. E49 Time Appellation: to keep but it should be merged with Date and it 
should be decided if they keep the same name (Oyvind)

E50 Date should be marked obsolete. I have changed the inheritance, the first 
paragraph of the scope note, and added two examples.

Old definition of E49 Time Appellation:

> Subclass of : E41 Appellation
> Superclass of: E50 Date
> 
> Scope Note: 
> 
> This class comprises all forms of names or codes, such as historical periods 
> which are characteristically used to refer to a specific E52 Time-Span. This 
> includes human- and machine readable dates and timestamps. 
>  
> The instances of E49 Time Appellation may vary in their degree of precision, 
> and they may be relative to other time frames, “Before Christ” for example. 
> Instances of E52 Time-Span are often defined by reference to a cultural 
> period or an event e.g. ‘the duration of the Ming Dynasty’. 
>  
> Examples: 
>   • “Meiji” [Japanese term for a specific time-span]
>   • “1st half of the XX century”
>   • “Quaternary”
>   • “1215 Hegira” [a date in the Islamic calendar]
>   • “Last century”

New definition of E49 Time Appellation:

Subclass of : E41 Appellation

Scope Note: 

This class comprises all forms of names or codes, such as historical periods, 
and dates, which are characteristically used to refer to a specific E52 
Time-Span. 

The instances of E49 Time Appellation may vary in their degree of precision, 
and they may be relative to other time frames, “Before Christ” for example. 
Instances of E52 Time-Span are often defined by reference to a cultural period 
or an event e.g. ‘the duration of the Ming Dynasty’. 

Examples: 
• “Meiji” [Japanese term for a specific time-span]
• “1st half of the XX century”
• “Quaternary”
• “1215 Hegira” [a date in the Islamic calendar]
• “Last century”
• “2013-10-05”
• “Mon May 19 22:39:23 CET 2014”


Kind regards,

Øyvind

[Crm-sig] HW reminder issue 307

[Øyvind Eide]

The 37th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 30th  
 FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed and accepted the 
proposed scope note of E16 Measurement  and asked Oyvind to provide examples 
for image and symbolic object e.g. word count of the crm based on the pdf of 
CRM 5.0  

Berlin, December 2016

Example 1:

The pixel size of the jpeg version of Titian’s painting Bacchus and Ariadne 
from 1520–3, as freely downloadable from the National Gallery in London’s web 
page  
is 581600 pixels.

Example 2:

The scope note of E21 Person in the Definition of the CIDOC Conceptual 
Reference Model Version 5.0.4 as downloaded from 
 
consists of 77 words.

Kind regards,

Øyvind

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 307

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

I understand your rationale. However, it is a tricky question as the words are 
used in different ways in different disciplines.

Objectivity is used in this way in CRM before, so fine. Immediate is not. To me 
the word ‘immediate’ indicates that the results are established without human 
interaction — it is surely a language problem. Would ‘direct’ instead of 
‘immediate’ work?

English first language’rs, any views?

Regards,

Øyvind

7. des. 2016 kl. 21:07 skrev martin :

> Dear Oeyvind,
> 
> "objective" may be an overkill. I thought of using a yardstick, which compare 
> the Yardstick with the item by human senses. The method is objective. Do you 
> have examples of non-objective measurements? The term "immediate" I would not 
> like to drop, because I want to make clear that evaluation of documents is 
> not regarded as measurement. "Remote sensing" still requires the sensors to 
> be in place at the time. Astronomy is not a priority domain for us, but 
> "measuring" a Supernova at several thousand light years distance would 
> require measuring a Supernova signasl arriving at us. So, for me measurement 
> means being in immediate contact with the measured.
> 
> Would that make sense?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 7/12/2016 11:36 πμ, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>> Dear Martin,
>> 
>> I think the following claim is too strong: “a systematic, objective 
>> procedure of immediate observation” I think both objective and immediate 
>> have to be qualified in order to be used in this context. As the last 
>> paragraph describes the process in some detail, the reference to objectivity 
>> and immediateness can also just be removed. 
>> 
>> All the best, 
>> 
>> Øyvind
>> 
>> 24. nov. 2016 kl. 17:04 skrev martin :
>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> After consultation with Achille and Thanasi, here my proposed scope note 
>>> for E16. The idea is to introduce S4 Observation and Observable Entity into 
>>> CRM proper.
>>> 
>>> Old Scope note:
>>> E16 Measurement
>>> Subclass of:  E13 Attribute Assignment
>>>  
>>> Scope note: This class comprises actions measuring physical 
>>> properties and other values that can be determined by a systematic 
>>> procedure.
>>>  
>>> Examples include measuring the monetary value of a collection of coins or 
>>> the running time of a specific video cassette.
>>>  
>>> The E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as yardsticks or 
>>> radiation detection devices. The interest is in the method and care 
>>> applied, so that the reliability of the result may be judged at a later 
>>> stage, or research continued on the associated documents. The date of the 
>>> event is important for dimensions, which may change value over time, such 
>>> as the length of an object subject to shrinkage. Details of methods and 
>>> devices are best handled as free text, whereas basic techniques such as 
>>> "carbon 14 dating" should be encoded using P2 has type (is type of:) E55 
>>> Type.
>>> Examples:
>>> §   measurement of height of silver cup 232 on the 31st  August 1997
>>> §   the carbon 14 dating of the “Schoeninger Speer II” in 1996 [an about 
>>> 400.000 years old Palaeolithic complete wooden spear found in Schoeningen, 
>>> Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995]
>>>  
>>> In First Order Logic:
>>>   E16(x) ⊃ E13(x)
>>>  
>>> Properties:
>>> P39 measured (was measured by): E1 CRM Entity
>>> P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension
>>>  
>>> New Scope Note:
>>> E16 Measurement
>>> Subclass of:  E13 Attribute Assignment
>>>  
>>> Scope note: This class comprises actions measuring quantitative 
>>> physical properties and other values that can be determined by a 
>>> systematic, objective procedure of immediate observation of particular 
>>> states of physical reality. Properties of instances of E90 Symbolic Object 
>>> may be measured via observing some of their representative carriers.
>>>  
>>> Examples include measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of 
>>> coins or the running time of a movie on a specific video cassette.
>>>  
>>> The E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as yardsticks or 
>>> radiation detection devices. The interest is in the method and care 
>>> applied, so that the reliability of t

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 307

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

I think the following claim is too strong: “a systematic, objective procedure 
of immediate observation” I think both objective and immediate have to be 
qualified in order to be used in this context. As the last paragraph describes 
the process in some detail, the reference to objectivity and immediateness can 
also just be removed. 

All the best, 

Øyvind

24. nov. 2016 kl. 17:04 skrev martin :

> Dear All,
> 
> After consultation with Achille and Thanasi, here my proposed scope note for 
> E16. The idea is to introduce S4 Observation and Observable Entity into CRM 
> proper.
> 
> Old Scope note:
> E16 Measurement
> Subclass of:  E13 Attribute Assignment
>  
> Scope note: This class comprises actions measuring physical 
> properties and other values that can be determined by a systematic procedure.
>  
> Examples include measuring the monetary value of a collection of coins or the 
> running time of a specific video cassette.
>  
> The E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as yardsticks or 
> radiation detection devices. The interest is in the method and care applied, 
> so that the reliability of the result may be judged at a later stage, or 
> research continued on the associated documents. The date of the event is 
> important for dimensions, which may change value over time, such as the 
> length of an object subject to shrinkage. Details of methods and devices are 
> best handled as free text, whereas basic techniques such as "carbon 14 
> dating" should be encoded using P2 has type (is type of:) E55 Type.
> Examples:
> §   measurement of height of silver cup 232 on the 31st  August 1997
> §   the carbon 14 dating of the “Schoeninger Speer II” in 1996 [an about 
> 400.000 years old Palaeolithic complete wooden spear found in Schoeningen, 
> Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995]
>  
> In First Order Logic:
>   E16(x) ⊃ E13(x)
>  
> Properties:
> P39 measured (was measured by): E1 CRM Entity
> P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension
>  
> New Scope Note:
> E16 Measurement
> Subclass of:  E13 Attribute Assignment
>  
> Scope note: This class comprises actions measuring quantitative 
> physical properties and other values that can be determined by a systematic,  
>  objective procedure of immediate observation of particular states of 
> physical reality. Properties of instances of E90 Symbolic Object may be 
> measured via observing some of their representative carriers.
>  
> Examples include measuring the nominal monetary value of a collection of 
> coins or the running time of a movie on a specific video cassette.
>  
> The E16 Measurement may use simple counting or tools, such as yardsticks or 
> radiation detection devices. The interest is in the method and care applied, 
> so that the reliability of the result may be judged at a later stage, or 
> research continued on the associated documents. The date of the event is 
> important for dimensions, which may change value over time, such as the 
> length of an object subject to shrinkage. Methods  and devices employed 
> should be associated with instances of E16 Measurement by properties such as 
> P33 used specific technique,  P125 used object of type, P16 used specific 
> object, whereas basic techniques such as "carbon 14 dating" should be encoded 
> using P2 has type (is type of:) E55 Type. Details of methods and devices 
> reused or reusable in other instances of E16 Measurement should be documented 
> for these entities rather than the measurements themselves, whereas details 
> of particular execution may be documented by free text or by instantiating 
> adequate subactivities, if the detail may be of interest for an overarching 
> query.
>  
> Regardless whether a measurement is made by an instrument or by human senses, 
> it represents the initial transition from physical reality to information 
> without any other documented information object in between in the reasoning 
> chain that would represent the result of the interaction of the observer or 
> device with reality. Therefore, inferring properties of depicted items using 
> image material, such as satellite images, is not regarded as instance of E16 
> Measurement, but as another form of subsequent attribute assignment. Rather, 
> the production of the images themselves is regarded as instance of E16 
> Measurement. The same reasoning holds for other sensor data.
> Examples:
> §   measurement of height of silver cup 232 on the 31st  August 1997
> §   the carbon 14 dating of the “Schoeninger Speer II” in 1996 [an about 
> 400.000 years old Palaeolithic complete wooden spear found in Schoeningen, 
> Niedersachsen, Germany in 1995]
>  
> In First Order Logic:
>   E16(x) ⊃ E13(x)
>  
> Properties:
> P39 measured (was measured by): E1 CRM Entity
> P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> -- 
> 
> 

[Crm-sig] Homework: E89 Propositional Object (issue 312)

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

Sorry about the lateness of this homework. The task was “to add examples to E89 
Propositional Object about fictitious persons and places.” I am not 100% sure 
about how to phrase such examples but I include two below as starting points 
for discussion.

Current examples:
• Maxwell’s Equations
• The ideational contents of Aristotle’s book entitled ‘Metaphysics’ as 
rendered in the Greek texts translated in … Oxford edition…
• The underlying prototype of any “no-smoking” sign (E36)
• The common ideas of the plots of the movie "The Seven Samurai" by 
Akira Kurosawa and the movie “The Magnificent Seven” by John Sturges
• The image content of the photo of the Allied Leaders at Yalta 1945 
(E38)

Additional examples:
• Little Red Riding Hood as a fictitious person depicted in a number 
for media expressions including oral fairy tales, the Grimm brothers’ 
‚Rotkäppchen’, and the film ‘Hoodwinked!’
• Havnor as the place is described in the ‘Earthsea’ book series by 
Ursula K. Le Guin, in maps made by her and others, in films based on the books, 
and in numerous fan fiction works. 


Have a nice meeting, I will join you on Friday,

Øyvind

[Crm-sig] Fwd: Small decision requested

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all, I assume some of you already know of this. It could make sense that someone from CIDOC were present, and most of the relevant people read this list, I believe.Kind regards,Øyvind
 Weitergeleitete Nachricht 

  
Betreff:

Workshop invitation: Persistent Identifiers in the
  Humanities - 9-December at the British Library
  
  
Datum: 
Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:04:36 +
  
  
Von: 
Farquhar, Adam 
  
  
Antwort
  an: 
eve...@project-thor.eu 
  
  
Kopie
  (CC): 
eve...@project-thor.eu 
  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  I’m writing to invite you to a workshop
on the potential of
  persistent identifiers in the humanities with a focus
  on History. The workshop will take place in London at the
  British Library on Friday 9th December. Persistent identifiers (PIDs) are
  increasingly embedded in the services that researchers use
  every day, enabling unambiguous attribution of the full range
  of scholarly outputs. This makes it easier for data producers
  and researchers to get credit for their contributions; for
  data centres, universities and funders to track the impact of
  the research they facilitate; for publishers to incorporate
  data into scholarly writing; and for researchers to discover
  and cite data with clear provenance. Uptake in the humanities, however, lags
  behind other disciplines. We are running a series of workshops
  to better understand the potential for persistent identifier
  services in the humanities, identify barriers to uptake and
  create a roadmap to guide future development. It would be great if you or someone from
  your team could participate. If you would like to recommend
  someone to attend, please let us know and we will try to
  extend an invitation. Attendance is free, but places are limited
  so that we can have an active and open discussion.
  Please register by Thursday 3 November at 
https://thor_pidsinhumanities.eventbrite.com  so that we
  can arrange catering and plan appropriately. The workshop is organised through the
  EU-funded THOR project (https://project-thor.eu/). If you have any questions, please send
  enquiries to 
eve...@project-thor.eu. Kind regards,Dr Adam FarquharHead of Digital Scholarship, The British
  LibraryTHOR Project Coordinator  
  
  
 
**
  Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
  The British Library’s latest Annual Report
  and Accounts :
www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html
  Help the British Library conserve the
  world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.
www.bl.uk/adoptabook
  The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi -
  enabled
  *
  The information contained in this e-mail
  is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended
  for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended
  recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the
postmas...@bl.uk
  : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied
  without the sender's consent.

  The statements and opinions expressed in
  this message are those of the author and do not necessarily
  reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does
  not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

  *
  
  Think before you
print

  



PIDs-Services-for-Humanities-9-Dec-2016.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

[Crm-sig] Cost action on archaeological practice

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

I see there is a new cost action on “Archaeological practices and knowledge 
work in the digital environment.”

http://www.cost.eu/COST_Actions/ca/CA15201

Does anybody know how (if?) they relate to cultural heritage information as we 
know it? I looked at the memorandum of understanding but found nothing about 
ICOM or CIDOC — it seemed to be more geared towards archaeological practice 
perhaps?

Kind regards,

Øyvind

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 

Re: [Crm-sig] A CFP that sounds like a natural for #cidocCRM SIG folk

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Jim,

thanks for the suggestion, but luckily I found a safe haven from publish or 
perish here in Germany ;-)

More seriously, I agree that it would be good to make sure CRM is visible in 
such a book but I am afraid I am totally tied up when it comes to writing and 
research right not (not to speak of teaching!)

All the best,

Øyvind

8. feb. 2016 kl. 22:58 skrev Jim Salmons (FactMiners) 
:

> A belated and sincere Happy New Year to all. I have brief comments on the 
> Collection-renaming conversation, but I could not resist getting this info 
> into the group after reading.
> 
> As an independent, unaffiliated Citizen Scientist, I don't have to worry 
> about this, but there are likely SIG members living in a "publish or perish" 
> situation. If so and you are looking for a publishing opportunity, this might 
> be a "win-win" for the SIG member and for our shared interest in promoting 
> interest and understanding about the #cidocCRM.
> 
> Here is a link to the call for chapter abstracts for the forthcoming De 
> Gruyter Saur book "Organization, Representation, and Description through the 
> Digital Age: Information in Libraries, Archives and Museums" to be edited by 
> Caroline Fuchs and Christine Angel of St. John's University, New York: 
> http://goo.gl/oc9mXW.
> 
> Given the described scope and focus of the editors' interest, this sure 
> sounds like a volume that should have at least a solid #cidocCRM 
> overview/survey chapter (and more).
> 
> BTW, if any SIG member has an interest in this publishing opportunity 
> (Oyvind, I'm looking at you ;-) ) and is short on time and/or energy and 
> would be interested in discussing a co-authoring relationship, my specific 
> interest would be in providing a compelling example of the use of a 
> cidocCRM/FRBRoo/PRESSoo "stack" in the modeling of a typical commercial 
> magazine publication to address the #TextSoup2SmartData challenge. I am very 
> pleased to be working on this challenge with folks from the PRImA Research 
> Lab and the EMOP (Early Modern OCR Project) folks from Texas A's IDHMC. If 
> anyone wants to know more or discuss possible collaboration, please do not 
> hesitate to contact me off-list.
> 
> Finally, I am interested if any SIG member is also a member of IAPR's TC#15, 
> the technical committee on GBR (graph-based reasoning) in the Pattern 
> Recognition field (http://iapr-tc15.greyc.fr/index.php). My PRImA buddy, 
> Apostolos Antonacopoulos, is about to introduce me to a former chair of the 
> committee so we can begin a conversation with these folks about our 
> #TextSoup2SmartData research collaboration.
> 
> Happy-Healthy 2016 Vibes,
> -: Jim :-
> 
> Jim Salmons
> FactMiners & The Softalk Apple Project
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] VOTE for the name of E78 Collection

[Øyvind Eide]

Yes.

Ø.

10. feb. 2016 kl. 17:27 skrev Pat Riva :

> Me too!
> 
> Pat Riva
> Associate University Librarian, Collection Services
> Concordia University
> Vanier Library (VL-301-61)
> 7141 Sherbrooke Street West
> Montreal, QC H4B 1R6
> Canada
> +1-514-848-2424 ext. 5255
> pat.r...@concordia.ca
> ___
> From: Crm-sig [crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] on behalf of Stephen Stead 
> [ste...@paveprime.com]
> Sent: February 10, 2016 11:11 AM
> To: 'martin'; crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] VOTE for the name of E78 Collection
> 
> I vote for Curated Holding without the S
> 
> Stephen Stead
> Tel +44 20 8668 3075
> Mob +44 7802 755 013
> E-mail ste...@paveprime.com
> LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin
> Sent: 06 February 2016 19:15
> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] VOTE for the name of E78 Collection
> 
> Good point! "Curated Holding" hence...
> 
> On 6/2/2016 9:20 πμ, Wolfgang Schmidle wrote:
>> Is the s in "holdings" necessary?
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/holdings suggests using the
>> plural, but to me as a non-native speaker it seems that "holdings" can
>> also mean, to a varying degree, the items in a collection rather than
>> the collection as a whole.
>> 
>> Google says:
>> 
>> 1. "curated holdings"
>> * Of the >3 million curated holdings, approximately 75% of are
>> identified to genus level or better.
>> * Curated holdings have more than doubled (factor of 2.5) over the
>> last 20 years.
>> * Total fully curated holdings comprise approximately 320,000
>> specimens in 1,380 drawers [as part of the Diptera collection having
>> approximately 897,000 specimens]
>> * “Wine Wednesdays” provide half-off savings on any bottle of wine
>> from the restaurant's well-curated holdings, which boast more than
>> 1,500 ...
>> --> at least in the first two examples: the items in a collection
>> rather than the collection as a whole?
>> 
>> * Curated holdings should be visible, as appropriate.
>> * There, forty exhibitors straight from Bruno's enviable Rolodex will
>> showcase their curated holdings of twentieth-century fine and
>> decorative arts.
>> --> more than one collection
>> 
>> 2. "curated holding"
>> * the Lexington Collection, a select and carefully curated holding of
>> gorgeous Greek and Roman coins
>> * As the largest, most comprehensive, and best-curated holding of
>> arthropods, predominately insects, ...
>> * "Unhinged," is a curated group exhibition of nearly 225 artists from
>> Pierogi's Flat Files ..., itself a curated holding of over 800
>> artists' works.
>> --> a single collection
>> 
>> With E78 Curated Holding, on the other hand, it may be confusing if
>> one talks about two E78's, i.e. Curated Holdings.
>> 
>> What was the argument against Steve Stead's suggestion "curated set"
>> (apart from the fact that "nobody would know what it meant")? What
>> about "curated collection"?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> 
>> Am 05.02.16 um 12:19 schrieb Chryssoula Bekiari:
>> 
>>> Dear All
>>> 
>>> In the last meeting, the crm-sig meeting decided to vote for the name
>>> of E78 Collection (issue 270). The proposal is to rename the E78
>>> Collection to E78 Curated Holdings
>>> 
>>> Please vote
>>> 
>>> Chryssoula
>>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 
> 
> --
> 
> --
>  Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
>  Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
>|  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
>  |
>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   |
>  |
>  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
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 

Re: [Crm-sig] E55 Type relations, ISSUE

[Øyvind Eide]

Thank you, Wolfgang! This makes sense to me.

The criteria for what is a period have to be decided by the experts. Yet, I 
think it is pretty clear that the Renaissance Augustus is a different period 
from the one in antiquity. Connected, but different. 

Regards,

Øyvind

On 6. jan. 2016, at 16:06, Wolfgang Schmidle wrote:

> Co-author here. Yes, we use [2] as evidence for [1], and if new evidence is 
> unearthed, the "restricted" statement may turn out to be false. 
> 
> The "closed world assumption" was only meant as an analogy. We do not argue 
> that a "Restriction" statement in the sense of a bounding box can be inferred 
> from the given "appears in" and "typical for" statements. (Maybe one should 
> also distinguish between the knowledge of the archaeologist and the — 
> possibly incomplete — list of actual "appears in" and "typical for" 
> statements.) Instead, it probably needs to be an explicit new statement, and 
> the inferred statement in Figure 3 should probably have a different name that 
> doesn't suggest anything but an inferred statement.
> 
> The point of the Restriction being a timespan rather than a period was, I 
> think, that the sum of periods may not automatically be a period itself. In 
> particular, it may not be identical to the "production of the Paukenfibel" 
> period. However, in Figure 3 we assume that there is at least no temporal gap 
> inbetween. And timespan means more or less the same as spacetime volume here 
> since the area in the example is always the same.
> 
> By the way, we have a similar problem in our gazetteer, where we need to 
> express the fact that a given region is part of the union of three other 
> regions. 
> 
> Best,
> Wolfgang
> 
> 
>> Am 06.01.2016 um 13:42 schrieb Øyvind Eide :
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> This was an interesting read. I have a question:
>> 
>> I do not understand the logic of the last paragraph in page 2. First they 
>> talk about 
>> 
>> [1] “a specific time period in which and only in which objects of a given 
>> type have been created” 
>> 
>> and then they go on to talk about 
>> 
>> [2] no finds from other periods. 
>> 
>> [2] is much weaker than [1] but is seems to me that [2] is still used as 
>> evidence for [1]. I do not argue that is wrong to use it as evidence (there 
>> are never proofs in heritage based research of this kind) but I fail to see 
>> how it can be seen as a closed world assumption — that is pretty strong. 
>> 
>> I think it is a good choice to model it as an implicit restriction, though; 
>> the modelling looks fine. It is more the use of “closed world” I wonder 
>> about.
>> 
>> 
>> As for the choice between modelling of periods as timespans or periods I 
>> think this feeds well into the discussion we have on space-time modelling 
>> and this document will be useful for the discussions in Prato.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Øyvind
>> 
>> 28. des. 2015 kl. 19:53 skrev martin :
>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> I wish you all a Happy New Year!
>>> 
>>> Please see this document to discuss properties of E55 Type
>>> for archaeological reasoning:
>>> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/E55-Type-Relations.pdf
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> martin
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
>>> Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
>>>   |  Email: 
>>> mar...@ics.forth.gr
>>> |
>>> |
>>>   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   |
>>> |
>>> 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
> 
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 

Re: [Crm-sig] E55 Type relations, ISSUE

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

This was an interesting read. I have a question:

I do not understand the logic of the last paragraph in page 2. First they talk 
about 

[1] “a specific time period in which and only in which objects of a given type 
have been created” 

and then they go on to talk about 

[2] no finds from other periods. 

[2] is much weaker than [1] but is seems to me that [2] is still used as 
evidence for [1]. I do not argue that is wrong to use it as evidence (there are 
never proofs in heritage based research of this kind) but I fail to see how it 
can be seen as a closed world assumption — that is pretty strong. 

I think it is a good choice to model it as an implicit restriction, though; the 
modelling looks fine. It is more the use of “closed world” I wonder about.


As for the choice between modelling of periods as timespans or periods I think 
this feeds well into the discussion we have on space-time modelling and this 
document will be useful for the discussions in Prato.

Regards,

Øyvind

28. des. 2015 kl. 19:53 skrev martin :

> Dear All,
> 
> I wish you all a Happy New Year!
> 
> Please see this document to discuss properties of E55 Type
> for archaeological reasoning:
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/E55-Type-Relations.pdf
> 
> Best,
> 
> martin
>  -- 
> 
> --
>  Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
>  Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
>|  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
>  |
>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   |
>  |
>  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

Re: [Crm-sig] Next Meeting

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

I had to make some other arrangements — some times life has to be planned well 
in advance. So I am now only available from Wednesday to Friday.

Unless this poses problems for the local organisers or others have problems 
with it I would therefore selfishly propose we decide now that the meeting will 
be:

Wednesday February 24 to Friday February 26.

All the best,

Øyvind

24. nov. 2015 kl. 14:56 skrev Christian-Emil Smith Ore :

> Dear all, 
> I will to book my flights early and will be happy if the dates could be fixed.
> Kind regards,
> Christian-Emil
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin
>> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 2:59 PM
>> To: crm-sig
>> Subject: [Crm-sig] Next Meeting
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> We have collected so far 17 responses to the Doodle poll
>> http://doodle.com/poll/ghhxhb5aa7q7wy5n
>> 
>> I believe we can fix now the week of Feb. 22-26, details to follow.
>> 
>> Looking forward to see you in Tuscany,
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
>> Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
>>  |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
>>|
>>  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   |
>>|
>>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

Re: [Crm-sig] Next Meeting

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

Thank you for this! Given that we discussed a three day meeting it would be 
good to know as soon as possible if the meeting will be Mo-We or We-Fr in the 
week.

Kind regards,

Øyvind

26. okt. 2015 kl. 14:59 skrev martin :

> Dear All,
> 
> We have collected so far 17 responses to the Doodle poll
> http://doodle.com/poll/ghhxhb5aa7q7wy5n
> 
> I believe we can fix now the week of Feb. 22-26, details to follow.
> 
> Looking forward to see you in Tuscany,
> 
> Martin
> -- 
> 
> --
>  Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
>  Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
>|  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
>  |
>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   |
>  |
>  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] CRM and accounting

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

Does anyone know about attempts to use CRM or FRBRoo for modelling historical 
ledgers or other types of accounting information? 

I know that accounting as part of the activity of museums falls outside the 
scope of CRM, but historical accounts may be a different question.

All the best,

Øyvind

Re: [Crm-sig] Participation to forthcoming meeting

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Chryssoula,

I will arrive in Heraklion Wednesday afternoon so I will take part Thursday and 
Friday.

All the best,

Øyvind

28. sep. 2015 kl. 19:56 skrev Chryssoula Bekiari :

> Dear All
> 
> I would like to ask you about your participation to the forthcoming meeting 
> in Crete.
> The provisional agenda of the meeting has been published on the site  
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/special_interest_meetings.html
> 
> best regards
> 
> Chryssoula
> 
> PS.
> You may find also the new versions of CIDOC CRM, CRMarchaeo, CRMgeo in the 
> following links
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/official_release_cidoc.html
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/technical_papers.html
> 
> -- 
> --
> Chryssoula Bekiari
> Research and Development Engineer
> 
> Center for Cultural Informatics / Information Systems Laboratory
> Institute of Computer Science
> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
> 
> N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, GR-700 13 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
> Phone: +30 2810 391631, Fax: +30 2810 391638, Skype: xrysmp
> E-mail: beki...@ics.forth.gr
> 
> Web-site: 
> http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/people/people_individual.jsp?Person_ID=13
> -
> 
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Homework CRM issue 234/272 (in part)

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Jim,

Thanks for the feedback, especially the comment on semantic tagging which 
surely shows an interesting example of such use. 

Maybe, when we have plenty of time, we can make a short demo on how it could be 
done.

Regards,

Øyvind

On 18. mai 2015, at 16:04, Jim Salmons wrote:

> Wow, Oyvind! Thank you for proving why you are such a valued member of my 
> #cidocCRM/#TEI Personal Learning Network (#PLN). :-) 
> 
> These are very interesting and informative Scope Notes. Rather than leave it 
> at simple, short description, you have examined subtleties of modeling 
> decisions, etc. that a prospective user will be thinking about. Every Entity 
> does not need such an extensive Scope Note, but there are most certainly 
> "core" Entities that will benefit from such expanded insights.
> 
> Using Scope Notes to conveniently provide in-context Best Practice modeling 
> advice will be most helpful as we evolve to greater use of the #cidocCRM for 
> S/W design and development. While museum professionals will have much domain 
> knowledge context to bring to reading the Definition document, S/W developers 
> -- many expert at modeling but without domain knowledge -- will find such 
> thoughtful notes very helpful.
> 
> One big point Oyvind's notes demonstrate is how valuable it will be to go to 
> a finer-grained semantically tagged format for the Definition document. It is 
> obvious reading these notes how natural it would be to have "hover pop-ups" 
> and clickable links to open the full #cidocCRM definition to "need to know" 
> exploration typical of S/W documentation/reference.
> 
> Oyvind: Tiny typo... Paragraph three of E18 says "An instances of E18..." 
> where the case is "pluralized" and just needs the 's' deleted. 
> 
> Congratulations on getting your "homework" in on time! :-)
> 
> -: Jim :-
> 
> Sent using CloudMagic
> 
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Øyvind Eide  wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Please find drafts for new scope notes below.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Øyvind
> 
> 
> 
> E4 Period
> Subclass of: E2 Temporal Entity
> E92 Spacetime Volume
> Superclass of: E5 Event
> 
> Scope note: This class comprises sets of coherent phenomena or cultural 
> manifestations occurring in time and space.
> 
> It is the social or physical coherence of these phenomena that identify an E4 
> Period and not the associated spatiotemporal extent. This extent is only the 
> “ground” or space in an abstract physical sense that the actual process of 
> growth, spread and retreat has covered. Consequently, different periods can 
> overlap and coexist in time and space, such as when a nomadic culture exists 
> in the same area and time as a sedentary culture. This also means that 
> overlapping land use rights, common among first nations, amounts to 
> overlapping periods.
> 
> Typically this class is used to describe prehistoric or historic periods such 
> as the “Neolithic Period”, the “Ming Dynasty” or the “McCarthy Era”, but also 
> geopolitical units and activities of settlements are regarded as special 
> cases of E4 Period.
> 
> As the actual extent of an E4 Period in spacetime we regard the trajectories 
> of the participating physical things during their participation in an 
> instance of E4 Period, the open spaces via which they have interacted and the 
> spaces by which they had the potential to interact during that period or 
> event in the way defined by the type of the respective period or event, such 
> as the air in a meeting room transferring the voices. Since these phenomena 
> are fuzzy, we assume the spatiotemporal extent to be contiguous, except for 
> cases of phenomena spreading out over islands or other separated areas, 
> including geopolitical units distributed over disconnected areas such as 
> islands or colonies.
> 
> Whether the trajectories necessary for participants to travel between these 
> areas are regarded as part of the spatiotemporal extent or not has to be 
> decided in each case based on a concrete analysis, taking use of the sea for 
> other purposes than travel, such as fishing, into consideration. One may also 
> argue that the activities to govern disconnected areas imply travelling 
> through spaces connecting them and that these areas hence are spatially 
> connected in a way, but it appears counterintuitive to consider for instance 
> travel routes in international waters as extensions of geopolitical units.
> 
> Consequently, instances of E4 Period may occupy each a limited number of 
> disjoint spacetime volumes, however there must not be a discontinuity in the 
> total timespan covered by these spacetime volumes. Nevertheless, an instance 
> of E4 Peri

[Crm-sig] HW Issue 230

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

Please find proposals for new scope notes for a coref class, and in addition a 
non-coref class. The new scope note is an attempt to remove some of the 
complexity of the previous definition. The attached doc file shows the changes 
from the proposal presented in Oxford by traced changes. 

CorefScopeNotes2015May.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document



Regards,

Øyvind


E91 Co-Reference Assignment
Subclass of:E13 Attribute Assignment

Scope note:

Co-reference refers to the fact that two or more propositional objects refer to 
the same entity. E91 Co-Reference Assignment is used to make claims about the 
existence of such co-reference. It comprises actions of making the assertion 
that two or more particular instances of E89 Propositional Object refer to the 
same instance of E1 CRM Entity. The assertion is based on the assumption that 
this was an implicit fact being made explicit by this assignment. Use of this 
class allows for the full description of the context of this assignment.

The Actor making the assertion may have different degrees of confidence in the 
truth of the asserted fact of co-reference, because it may imply an 
interpretation of the (past) knowledge behind the propositional objects assumed 
to be co-referring. This degree of confidence, also known as “propositional 
attitude”, can be described by using the property P2 has type (is type of) for 
the whole of the co-reference activity. No such degree of confidence can be 
connected to each of the co-referring propositional objects. In the case one 
E39 Actor creates a E91 Co-Reference Assignment between two or more E89 
Propositional Objects and wants to express two or more different propositional 
attitudes for one E89 Propositional Object, the assertion has accordingly to be 
divided into one instance of E91 Co-Reference Assignment for each propositional 
attitude.

Co-reference establishes a link between two or more E89 Propositional Objects. 
This usually includes one or more E89 Propositional Objects external to the 
information system in which the E91 Co-Reference Assignment is made. The 
co-reference target property can be included to point to an E1 Entity within 
the current information system representing the target of the co-referring 
propositional objects.


Examples:
§   the assertion that the author name “Hans Jæger” on the title page of the 
novel “Fra Christiania-Bohêmen” refers to the same historical person as the 
motive of the painting “Forfatteren Hans Jæger” by Edvard Munch.
§   the assertion that the author name “Hans Jæger” on the title page of the 
novel “Fra Christiania-Bohêmen” does not refer to the same historical person as 
the author of the collection of drawings “Til Julebordet : ti Pennetegninger / 
af H.J.” incorrectly attributed to Hans Jæger in the Bibsys database.
§   Insert example of the use of P2 has type as describe in the scope notes.
Properties:
P153 assigned co-reference to (was regarded to co-refer by): E89 Propositional 
Object
P155 has co-reference target (is co-reference target of): E1 CRM Entity


Enn Non-Co-Reference Assignment
Subclass of:E13 Attribute Assignment

Scope note:

Co-reference refers to the fact that two or more propositional objects refer to 
the same entity. Enn Non-Co-Reference Assignment is used to make claims about 
the non-existence of such co-reference. It comprises actions of making the 
assertion that two or more particular instances of E89 Propositional Object 
does not refer to the same instance of E1 CRM Entity. The assertion is based on 
the assumption that this was an implicit fact being made explicit by this 
assignment. Use of this class allows for the full description of the context of 
this assignment.

The Actor making the assertion may have different degrees of confidence in the 
truth of the asserted fact of non-co-reference, because it may imply an 
interpretation of the (past) knowledge behind the propositional objects assumed 
not to be co-referring. This degree of confidence, also known as “propositional 
attitude”, can be described by using the property P2 has type (is type of) for 
the whole of the co-reference activity. No such degree of confidence can be 
connected to each of the non-co-referring propositional objects. In the case 
one E39 Actor creates a Enn Non-Co-Reference Assignment between two or more E89 
Propositional Objects and wants to express two or more different propositional 
attitudes for one E89 Propositional Object, the assertion has accordingly to be 
divided into one instance of Enn Non-Co-Reference Assignment for each 
propositional attitude.

Non-Co-reference establishes a link between two or more E89 Propositional 
Objects. This usually includes one or more E89 Propositional Objects external 
to the information system in which the E91 Co-Reference Assignment is made.

P154 assigned non co-reference to (was regarded not to co-refer by): E89 
Propositional Object

[Crm-sig] Homework CRM issue 234/272 (in part)

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

Please find drafts for new scope notes below.

Best,

Øyvind



E4 Period
Subclass of:E2 Temporal Entity
   E92 Spacetime Volume
Superclass of:E5 Event

Scope note:  This class comprises sets of coherent phenomena or 
cultural manifestations occurring in time and space.

It is the social or physical coherence of these phenomena that identify an E4 
Period and not the associated spatiotemporal extent. This extent is only the 
“ground” or space in an abstract physical sense that the actual process of 
growth, spread and retreat has covered. Consequently, different periods can 
overlap and coexist in time and space, such as when a nomadic culture exists in 
the same area and time as a sedentary culture. This also means that overlapping 
land use rights, common among first nations, amounts to overlapping periods.

Typically this class is used to describe prehistoric or historic periods such 
as the “Neolithic Period”, the “Ming Dynasty” or the “McCarthy Era”, but also 
geopolitical units and activities of settlements are regarded as special cases 
of E4 Period.

As the actual extent of an E4 Period in spacetime we regard the trajectories of 
the participating physical things during their participation in an instance of 
E4 Period, the open spaces via which they have interacted and the spaces by 
which they had the potential to interact during that period or event in the way 
defined by the type of the respective period or event, such as the air in a 
meeting room transferring the voices. Since these phenomena are fuzzy, we 
assume the spatiotemporal extent to be contiguous, except for cases of 
phenomena spreading out over islands or other separated areas, including 
geopolitical units distributed over disconnected areas such as islands or 
colonies.

Whether the trajectories necessary for participants to travel between these 
areas are regarded as part of the spatiotemporal extent or not has to be 
decided in each case based on a concrete analysis, taking use of the sea for 
other purposes than travel, such as fishing, into consideration. One may also 
argue that the activities to govern disconnected areas imply travelling through 
spaces connecting them and that these areas hence are spatially connected in a 
way, but it appears counterintuitive to consider for instance travel routes in 
international waters as extensions of geopolitical units.

Consequently, instances of E4 Period may occupy each a limited number of 
disjoint spacetime volumes, however there must not be a discontinuity in the 
total timespan covered by these spacetime volumes.  Nevertheless, an instance 
of E4 Period must be contiguous in time. I.e., if it has ended in all areas, it 
has ended as a whole, but it may involve one area after another, such as the 
Polynesian migration, as long as it is ongoing at least in one area.

We model E4 Period as a subclass of E2 Temporal Entity and of E92 Spacetime 
volume. The latter is intended as a phenomenal spacetime volume as defined in 
CRMgeo (Doerr and Hiebel 2013). By virtue of this multiple inheritance we can 
discuss the physical extent of an E4 Period without representing each instance 
of it together with an instance of its associated spacetime volume. This model 
combines two quite different kinds of substance: an instance of E4 Period is a 
phenomena while a spacetime volume is an aggregation of points in spacetime. 
However, the real spatiotemporal extent of an instance of E4 Period is regarded 
to be unique to it due to all its details and fuzziness; its identity and 
existence depends uniquely on the identity of the instance of E4 Period. 
Therefore this multiple inheritance is unambiguous and effective and 
furthermore corresponds to the intuitions of natural language.

There are no assumptions about the scale of the associated phenomena. In 
particular all events are seen as synthetic processes consisting of coherent 
phenomena. Therefore E4 Period is a superclass of E5 Event. For example, a 
modern clinical E67 Birth can be seen as both an atomic E5 Event and as an E4 
Period that consists of multiple activities performed by multiple instances of 
E39 Actor.

There are two different conceptualisations of ‘artistic style’, defined either 
by physical features or by historical context. For example, “Impressionism” can 
be viewed as a period lasting from approximately 1870 to 1905 during which 
paintings with particular characteristics were produced by a group of artists 
that included (among others) Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley and Degas. 
Alternatively, it can be regarded as a style applicable to all paintings 
sharing the characteristics of the works produced by the Impressionist 
painters, regardless of historical context. The first interpretation is an E4 
Period, and the second defines morphological object types that fall under E55 
Type.

Another specific case of an E4 Period is the set 

[Crm-sig] Homework CRM issue 234/272 (in part)

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

Please find drafts for new scope notes below and also included as doc files. 

Issue272NewE4.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document


Issue272NewE18.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document


Best,

Øyvind



E4 Period
Subclass of:E2 Temporal Entity
E92 Spacetime Volume
Superclass of:E5 Event
 
Scope note:  This class comprises sets of coherent phenomena or 
cultural manifestations occurring in time and space.
 
It is the social or physical coherence of these phenomena that identify an E4 
Period and not the associated spatiotemporal extent. This extent is only the 
“ground” or space in an abstract physical sense that the actual process of 
growth, spread and retreat has covered. Consequently, different periods can 
overlap and coexist in time and space, such as when a nomadic culture exists in 
the same area and time as a sedentary culture. This also means that overlapping 
land use rights, common among first nations, amounts to overlapping periods.
 
Typically this class is used to describe prehistoric or historic periods such 
as the “Neolithic Period”, the “Ming Dynasty” or the “McCarthy Era”, but also 
geopolitical units and activities of settlements are regarded as special cases 
of E4 Period.
 
As the actual extent of an E4 Period in spacetime we regard the trajectories of 
the participating physical things during their participation in an instance of 
E4 Period, the open spaces via which they have interacted and the spaces by 
which they had the potential to interact during that period or event in the way 
defined by the type of the respective period or event, such as the air in a 
meeting room transferring the voices. Since these phenomena are fuzzy, we 
assume the spatiotemporal extent to be contiguous, except for cases of 
phenomena spreading out over islands or other separated areas, including 
geopolitical units distributed over disconnected areas such as islands or 
colonies.
 
Whether the trajectories necessary for participants to travel between these 
areas are regarded as part of the spatiotemporal extent or not has to be 
decided in each case based on a concrete analysis, taking use of the sea for 
other purposes than travel, such as fishing, into consideration. One may also 
argue that the activities to govern disconnected areas imply travelling through 
spaces connecting them and that these areas hence are spatially connected in a 
way, but it appears counterintuitive to consider for instance travel routes in 
international waters as extensions of geopolitical units.
 
Consequently, instances of E4 Period may occupy each a limited number of 
disjoint spacetime volumes, however there must not be a discontinuity in the 
total timespan covered by these spacetime volumes.  Nevertheless, an instance 
of E4 Period must be contiguous in time. I.e., if it has ended in all areas, it 
has ended as a whole, but it may involve one area after another, such as the 
Polynesian migration, as long as it is ongoing at least in one area.
 
We model E4 Period as a subclass of E2 Temporal Entity and of E92 Spacetime 
volume. The latter is intended as a phenomenal spacetime volume as defined in 
CRMgeo (Doerr and Hiebel 2013). By virtue of this multiple inheritance we can 
discuss the physical extent of an E4 Period without representing each instance 
of it together with an instance of its associated spacetime volume. This model 
combines two quite different kinds of substance: an instance of E4 Period is a 
phenomena while a spacetime volume is an aggregation of points in spacetime. 
However, the real spatiotemporal extent of an instance of E4 Period is regarded 
to be unique to it due to all its details and fuzziness; its identity and 
existence depends uniquely on the identity of the instance of E4 Period. 
Therefore this multiple inheritance is unambiguous and effective and 
furthermore corresponds to the intuitions of natural language.
 
There are no assumptions about the scale of the associated phenomena. In 
particular all events are seen as synthetic processes consisting of coherent 
phenomena. Therefore E4 Period is a superclass of E5 Event. For example, a 
modern clinical E67 Birth can be seen as both an atomic E5 Event and as an E4 
Period that consists of multiple activities performed by multiple instances of 
E39 Actor.
 
There are two different conceptualisations of ‘artistic style’, defined either 
by physical features or by historical context. For example, “Impressionism” can 
be viewed as a period lasting from approximately 1870 to 1905 during which 
paintings with particular characteristics were produced by a group of artists 
that included (among others) Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley and Degas. 
Alternatively, it can be regarded as a style applicable to all paintings 
sharing the characteristics of the works produced by the Impressionist 
painters, regardless of historical context. The first 

[Crm-sig] HW: issue 248

[Øyvind Eide]

Here is my homework for issue 248. What should be done was: 

“a) ::Put a comment into the introduction of CRM that same label is used if the 
substance of the property is regarded to be the same, but different constraints 
apply to their use with a specific class, such as Parts of a period must be 
periods etc. (to be elaborated by Øyvind)”

My comment for the introduction is:

“In CIDOC-CRM the names of labels cannot be used to infer their meaning. Only 
the full description including scope notes, context of use, and examples can 
provide the necessary semantic for understanding an entity or a property. Thus, 
if two entities or properties have the same name, such as P5 consists of and P9 
consists of, this does not imply an identity between the two entities or 
properties. In such cases their substance are seen as similar but their 
contexts of use are different. P5 and P9 are distinguished by their different 
domains and ranges which situates them in different contexts, thus give them 
different meanings.”

Best,

Øyvind

Re: [Crm-sig] Participation to forthcoming meeting

[Øyvind Eide]

I will be there from Wednesday morning to Friday afternoon. I have to teach in 
Passau on Tuesday and get to Norway on Friday night.

Best,

Øyvind

On 8. mai 2015, at 12:48, Chryssoula Bekiari wrote:

> Dear All
> I would like to ask you about your participation to the forthcoming meeting 
> in Nuremberg.
> The provisional agenda of the meeting has been published on the site 
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/agentas/33rd-sig-agenda(provisional)-v2.pdf.
> 
> best regards
> 
> Chryssoula
> 
> -- 
> --
> Chryssoula Bekiari
> Research and Development Engineer
> 
> Center for Cultural Informatics / Information Systems Laboratory
> Institute of Computer Science
> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
> 
> N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, GR-700 13 Heraklion, Crete, Greece
> Phone: +30 2810 391631, Fax: +30 2810 391638, Skype: xrysmp
> E-mail: beki...@ics.forth.gr
> 
> Web-site: 
> http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/people/people_individual.jsp?Person_ID=13
> -
> 
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 272

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

Thank you for this extension of the scope notes. I think it makes a lot of 
sense but I have similar comments as to E4. 

If the SIG thinks my suggestions for the changes to your proposal for E4 is 
useful I will be happy to make similar changes to the fourth paragraph (“Even 
though the substance of an instance...”) here in E18.

Best,

Øyvind

On 20. mars 2015, at 19:46, martin wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Here the scope note for E18:
> 
> E18 Physical Thing
> Subclass of: E72 Legal Object
> Superclass of: E19 Physical Object
> E24 Physical Man-Made Thing
> E26 Physical Feature
>  
> Scope Note: This class comprises all persistent physical items with a 
> relatively stable form, man-made or natural.
>  
> Depending on the existence of natural boundaries of such things, the CRM 
> distinguishes the instances of E19 Physical Object from instances of E26 
> Physical Feature, such as holes, rivers, pieces of land etc. Most instances 
> of E19 Physical Object can be moved (if not too heavy), whereas features are 
> integral to the surrounding matter.
>  
> The CRM is generally not concerned with amounts of matter in fluid or gaseous 
> states.
> Examples:
> §   the Cullinan Diamond (E19)
> §   the cave “Ideon Andron” in Crete (E26)
> §   the Mona Lisa (E22)
> Properties:
> P44 has condition (is condition of): E3 Condition State
> P45 consists of (is incorporated in): E57 Material
> P46 is composed of (forms part of): E18 Physical Thing
> P49 has former or current keeper (is former or current keeper of): E39 Actor
> P50 has current keeper (is current keeper of): E39 Actor
> P51 has former or current owner (is former or current owner of): E39 Actor
> P52 has current owner (is current owner of): E39 Actor
> P53 has former or current location (is former or current location of): E53 
> Place
> P58 has section definition (defines section): E46 Section Definition
> P59 has section (is located on or within): E53 Place
> P128 carries (is carried by): E90 Symbolic Object
> P156 occupies: E53 Place
> P159 occupied: E92 Spacetime Volume
>  
>  
> E18 Physical Thing
> Subclass of: E72 Legal Object
> Superclass of: E19 Physical Object
> E24 Physical Man-Made Thing
> E26 Physical Feature
>  
> Scope Note: This class comprises all persistent physical items with a 
> relatively stable form, man-made or natural.
>  
> Depending on the existence of natural boundaries of such things, the CRM 
> distinguishes the instances of E19 Physical Object from instances of E26 
> Physical Feature, such as holes, rivers, pieces of land etc. Most instances 
> of E19 Physical Object can be moved (if not too heavy), whereas features are 
> integral to the surrounding matter.
>  
> An instances of E18 Physical Thing occupies not only a particular geometric 
> space, but in the course of its existence it performs a trajectory through 
> spacetime, which occupies a real, that is phenomenal, volume in spacetime. We 
> include in the occupied space the space filled by the matter of the physical 
> thing and all its inner spaces, such as the inner of a box. Physical things 
> consisting of aggregations of physically unconnected objects, such as a set 
> of chessmen, occupy a number of individually contiguous spacetime volumes 
> equal to the number of unconnected objects that constitute them.
>  
> Even though the substance of an instance of E18 Physical Thing is matter and 
> hence different from the substance of a spacetime volume, which is an 
> aggregation of 4 dimensional points in spacetime, the real spatiotemporal 
> extent of an instance of E18 Physical Thing is regarded to be unique to it 
> due to all its details and fuzziness. Its identity and existence depends 
> uniquely on the identity of the instance of E18 Physical Thing. Therefore we 
> model E18 Physical Thing to be a subclass of E72 Legal Object and of E92 
> Spacetime volume, a “phenomenal” one (see Hiebel et al.). By virtue of this 
> multiple inheritance, we avoid representing each instance of E18 Physical 
> Thing together with an instance of its associated spacetime volume, if we 
> want to talk about the places it occupies through time. This model, even 
> though combining two distinct kinds of substance, is unambiguous, effective 
> and corresponds to the intuitions of natural language.
>  
> The CRM is generally not concerned with amounts of matter in fluid or gaseous 
> states.
> Examples:
> §   the Cullinan Diamond (E19)
> §   the cave “Ideon Andron” in Crete (E26)
> §   the Mona Lisa (E22)
> Properties:
> P44 has condition (is condition of): E3 Condition State
> P45 consists of (is incorporated in): E57 Material
> P46 is composed of (forms part of): E18 Physical Thing
> P49 has former or current keeper (is former or current keeper of): E39 Actor
> P50 has current keeper (is current keeper of): E39 Actor
> P51 has former or current owner (is former or current owner of): E39 Actor
> P52 has current owner (is current owner 

Re: [Crm-sig] CRM/FRBRoo turorial/workshop at CIDOC 2015 New Delhi

[Øyvind Eide]

I would love to come but I cannot pay myself and I have no clue how to find 
somebody else to pay. Funding channels here are already led to other waters.

Regards,

Øyvind

On 5. mai 2015, at 15:53, Mika Nyman wrote:

> 
> Dear Christian-Emil
> 
> Just an offer for you to consider.
> 
> I could say something about mapping the CIDOC CRM and FRBRoo to a conceptual 
> model for Archives (more specifically the AHAA-model of Finnish Archives). We 
> could discuss some more how to present the archves dimension, as co-operation 
> with archives is a key theme of the conference and the National Archives of 
> India is one of the organizers.
> 
> If Øyvind comes we could say something together about the concept of 
> co-reference and how that is expressed in the CIDOC CRM.
> 
> Best regards,
> Mika
> 
> PS. Regrettably I will not be able to come to Nürnberg.
> 
> 
> Mika Nyman, Suomenlinna Sea Fortress A3, 00190 Helsinki, Finland
> mika.ny...@synapse-computing.com
> puh/tel/phone +358 44 324 0004
> 
> 
> On 5.5.2015 15:26, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
>> Dear all, I plan to CIDOC 2015 in New Delhi  5-10th of September. I
>> can do an at least half day tutorial/workshop alone. A full day is
>> preferred, but then it would have been good with more speakers. The
>> date for the workshop/tutorial will be 6th September 2015. Anybothy
>> interested?
>> 
>> Regards, Christian-Emil
>> 
>> ___ 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] ISSUE 272

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

Thank you for the new version! As far as I can see some changes I suggested 
(and I thought was accepted?) for the last meeting is not part of your revised 
version. They are noted below.

I also suggested an updated version of the new paragraph and wonders a bit if 
two paragraphs are partly saying the same with different words. Details below.

Best,

Øyvind

On 19. mars 2015, at 20:20, martin wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Below my attempt to adapt the scope note of E4 Period 
> to be subclass of spacetime volume.
> 
> Comments welcome!
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> E4 Period
> Subclass of: E2 Temporal Entity
>   E92 Spacetime Volume
> Superclass of: E5 Event
>  
> Scope note: This class comprises sets of coherent phenomena or 
> cultural manifestations bounded in time and space.
>  
> It is the social or physical coherence of these phenomena that identify an E4 
> Period and not the associated spatiotemporal bounds. These bounds are a mere 
> approximation of the actual process of growth, spread and retreat. 
> Consequently, different periods can overlap and coexist in time and space, 
> such as when a nomadic culture exists in the same area as a sedentary culture.
> As the actual extent of an E4 Period in spacetime we regard the trajectories 
> of the participating physical things during their participation in an 
> instance of E4 Period, the open spaces via which they have interacted and the 
> spaces by which they had the potential to interact during that period or 
> event in the way defined by the type of the respective period or event, such 
> as the air in a meeting room transferring the voices. Since these phenomena 
> are fuzzy, we assume the spatiotemporal extent to be contiguous, except for 
> cases of phenomena spreading out over islands or other separated areas. In 
> these cases, the trajectories necessary for participants to travel between 
> these areas are not regarded as part of the spatiotemporal extent. 
> Consequently, instances of E4 Period may occupy each a limited number of 
> disjoint spacetime volumes, however there must not be a discontinuity in the 
> total timespan covered by these spacetime volumes.
>  
> Typically this class is used to describe prehistoric or historic periods such 
> as the “Neolithic Period”, the “Ming Dynasty” or the “McCarthy Era”, but also 
> geopolitical units and activities of settlements are regarded as special 
> cases of E4 Period. Geopolitical units may be distributed over disconnected 
> areas, such as islands or colonies. In such cases, the spatiotemporal extent 
> is composed of more than one spacetime volume. One may argue that the 
> activities to govern disconnected areas imply travelling through spaces 
> connecting them and   that these areas hence are spatially 
> connected in a way, but it appears   counterintuitive to consider 
> for instance travel routes in international waters as extensions of 
> geopolitical units. Nevertheless, an instance of E4 Period must be contiguous 
> in time. I.e., if it has ended in all areas, it has ended as a whole, but it 
> may involve one area after another, such as the Polynesian migration, as long 
> as it is ongoing  at least in one area.
>  
> There are no assumptions about the scale of the associated phenomena. In 
> particular all events are seen as synthetic processes consisting of coherent 
> phenomena. Therefore E4 Period is a superclass of E5 Event. For example, a 
> modern clinical E67 Birth can be seen as both an atomic E5 Event and as an E4 
> Period that consists of multiple activities performed by multiple instances 
> of E39 Actor.
>  
>  
> There are two different conceptualisations of ‘artistic style’, defined 
> either by physical features or by historical context. For example, 
> “Impressionism” can be viewed as a period lasting from approximately 1870 to 
> 1905 during which paintings with particular characteristics were produced by 
> a group of artists that included (among others) Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, 
> Sisley and Degas. Alternatively, it can be regarded as a style applicable to 
> all paintings sharing the characteristics of the works produced by the 
> Impressionist painters, regardless of historical context. The first 
> interpretation is an E4 Period, and the second defines morphological object 
> types that fall under E55 Type.
>  
> Another specific case of an E4 Period is the set of activities and phenomena 
> associated with a settlement, such as the populated period of Nineveh.
>  
> Examples:
> §  Jurassic
> §  European Bronze Age
> §  Italian Renaissance
> §  Thirty Years War
> §  Sturm und Drang
> §  Cubism
> Properties:
> P7 took place at (witnessed): E53 Place
> P8 took place on or within (witnessed): E18 Physical Thing
> P9 consists of (forms part of): E4 Period
> P10 falls within (contains): E4 Period
> P132 overlaps with: E4 Period
> P133 is separated from: E4 Period
> P158 occupied: E92 

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue P10

[Øyvind Eide]

This makes sense to me. I find no counter-examples on the top of my head (or IN 
the top of my head forming part of the space time volume of my head forming 
part of…)

Ø.

17. mars 2015 kl. 17:11 skrev martin :

> Dear All,
> I was pointed to the fact that E92 Spacetime Volume lacks a containment 
> property.
> 
> The property E4 Period P10 falls within E4 Period is described as:
> "This property associates an instance of E4 Period with another 
> instance of E4 Period that falls within the spacetime volumes occupied by the 
> latter." lala
> Since E4 Period in CRM v6.0 IsA E92 Spacetime Volume, P10 should be property 
> of E92, and no more
> of E4. Then, it will also be a property of E18, meaning that within some 
> object, for some time, there
> was something else, for instance, a golden bracelet in a treasury box. Sounds 
> quite intuitive.
> It may also be, that inside a thing something happened, such as Lord Nelson 
> dying in a room
> on HMS Victory. Finally, it may mean that within some Period, some object or 
> person existed,
> which is equally correct. Summarizing, not only gives this generalization 
> credit to the fact that
> P10 does not describe a causal or part-of relation, but the mixing of periods 
> containing things 
> and vice-versa appears to be quite intuitive.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> -- 
> 
> --
>  Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
>  Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
>|  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
>  |
>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   |
>  |
>  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

Re: [Crm-sig] DigiPal: The Problem of Digital Dating: Online Survey

[Øyvind Eide]

12. mars 2015 kl. 10:31 skrev arianna.ci...@roehampton.ac.uk:

> Agreed.
> 
> There are however at least two references in the TEI to issues concerning the 
> translation of verbal (and imprecise) temporal descriptions in the source 
> text to interpretations of numerical values. See 
> http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/CO.html#CONADA (in 
> particular the reference to mechanisms connected to the expression of ' 
> Certainty, Precision, and Responsibility') and also the reference to the 
> possibility to link a temporal expression in the document being encoded to an 
> explicit interpretation linking to a features structure mechanism outside of 
> the encoding of that document (see 
> http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ND.html#NDDATER).
> 
> I see another issue concerning the interpretation of numbers into dating and 
> connected to what you say here. For example in the survey there are two 
> expressions: 'circa 1100' and 'circa 1172'. The number 1100 in natural but 
> also palaeographical language might denote a full century and not just the 
> year 1100, while 1172 is most likely used to denote that year only. So 'circa 
> 1100' could arguably be understood to mean '1091-1199' while 'circa 1172' 
> would be taken to denote a narrower interval range, say '1170-1174’.

This is interesting and common across data types. For instance, 
‘north-north-east’ will often indicate a higher precision than ‘east’ because 
one cannot know if the latter is an expression in a system of 16, 8, 4, or 2; 
whereas the former is signalling a system of 16. 

Leif Isaksen pointed out a similar point in Ptolemy’s data: Isaksen, Leif. 
"Ptolemy’s Geography and the Birth of GIS." Digital Humanities: Book of 
Abstracts, University of Hamburg, Germany, July 16--22 2012: 236-239.

Regards,

Øyvind

Re: [Crm-sig] Homework: issue 230

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Richard, and all,

To try to clarify in the light of the morning, there are (as I see it) two 
separate issues:

1. A simplification of the scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment. This is 
a topic of the meeting next week. It would be good if you could comment if:

a) the changes in scope notes introduces any new problems or solves old problems
b) there are problems in E91 which was not solved by the proposed changes.

2. A document about (co)referencing. I would surely be happy to discuss that 
(at length!) but it is kept outside of CRM on purpose. It is a discussion 
document, not a part of the standard. Once finalised, it could be referred to 
from the standard if we so wish. As you can see it is still in draft form. 

Also remember the construct:

E89 Propositional Object —> P67 refers to (is referred to by) —> E1 CRM Entity

which can be used for reference without the co. The latter will easily 
introduce implicit co-reference. E91 is for explicit co-reference. I would be 
happy to go on about the difference (and can do it if it helps) but now my 
train is arriving and I have to do other things.

I hope this helps to focus the disagreements,

Øyvind

6. feb. 2015 kl. 20:55 skrev Øyvind Eide :

> 
> 6. feb. 2015 kl. 19:07 skrev Richard Light :
> 
>> 
>> On 06/02/2015 18:11, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>>> If one source refers to one object, then it is not a co-reference. Then it 
>>> is a reference. 
>>> 
>>> Co-reference is there to say that you know (for some reason you may specify 
>>> if you want to) that two or more word/phrases refer to the same real-world 
>>> person. The latter can be specified or it can be left undefined.
>>> 
>>> I fail to see why co-reference should solve the problem of single 
>>> propositional objects referring to real world objects — we already had 
>>> mecanisms for that.
>> OK, here is an example.  This section of Linked Data text from the 
>> recently-opened EEBO:
>> 
>> http://data.modes.org.uk/TEI-P5/EEBO-TCP/id/A01483.d1e2619
>> 
>> is, in my opinion, talking about this non-information object:
>> 
>> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Edward_Plantagenet,_17th_Earl_of_Warwick
>> 
>> How would you model that in the CRM?
> 
> I would say the two are propositional objects co-referring. No problem.
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I have a feeling that the problems documented in the long paper would apply 
>>> to single references too if the target is not modelled within your 
>>> information system. This may be linked to fundamental problems with the 
>>> whole linked data paradigm. But this is just a feeling so I have to flesh 
>>> it out more to say something evidence based on it.
>> This is an aspect of the issue which I don't understand.  If you can't 
>> (knowingly) decide that you trust an external Linked Data resource and are 
>> allowed to make assertions which touch on the entities which it defines, 
>> what hope is there for the whole Linked Data project?  (Or, if this 
>> constraint is specific to the CRM, then the same point applies more locally. 
>> :-) )
> 
> Sure you can trust something external to your infomration system. As, for 
> instance, a propositional object.
> 
> I am afraid we may be talking past each other but it may be too late for me 
> to see how…
> 
> Best,
> 
> Øyvind
> 
>> 
>> Richard
>> 
>>> 
>>> I may have misunderstood you question so please use smaller spoons if I did!
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Øyvind
>>> 
>>> 6. feb. 2015 kl. 18:08 skrev Richard Light :
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> If I have interpreted your longer paper correctly, that means that the 
>>>> whole co-reference mechanism that the CRM has erected fails to address the 
>>>> practical requirement which I would have.  That is, the ability for me to 
>>>> indicate that a word or phrase in a source document refers (in my 
>>>> opinion), to a specified real-world person (or other non-information 
>>>> object).
>>>> 
>>>> Have I got this right, and, if so, is there a CRM mechanism which does 
>>>> allow me to make this kind of assertion?
>>>> 
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> 
>>>> Richard
>>>> 
>>>> On 04/02/2015 12:06, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please find enclosed my homework for issue 230. It consists of two things:
>>>>> 
>>>>> * New scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment, shortened to keep 
>>

Re: [Crm-sig] Homework: issue 230

[Øyvind Eide]

6. feb. 2015 kl. 19:07 skrev Richard Light :

> 
> On 06/02/2015 18:11, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>> If one source refers to one object, then it is not a co-reference. Then it 
>> is a reference. 
>> 
>> Co-reference is there to say that you know (for some reason you may specify 
>> if you want to) that two or more word/phrases refer to the same real-world 
>> person. The latter can be specififed or it can be left undefined.
>> 
>> I fail to see why co-reference should solve the problem of single 
>> propositional objects referring to real world objects — we already had 
>> mecanisms for that.
> OK, here is an example.  This section of Linked Data text from the 
> recently-opened EEBO:
> 
> http://data.modes.org.uk/TEI-P5/EEBO-TCP/id/A01483.d1e2619
> 
> is, in my opinion, talking about this non-information object:
> 
> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Edward_Plantagenet,_17th_Earl_of_Warwick
> 
> How would you model that in the CRM?

I would say the two are propositional objects co-referring. No problem.

> 
>> 
>> I have a feeling that the problems documented in the long paper would apply 
>> to single references too if the target is not modelled within your 
>> information system. This may be linked to fundamental problems with the 
>> whole linked data paradigm. But this is just a feeling so I have to flesh it 
>> out more to say something evidence based on it.
> This is an aspect of the issue which I don't understand.  If you can't 
> (knowingly) decide that you trust an external Linked Data resource and are 
> allowed to make assertions which touch on the entities which it defines, what 
> hope is there for the whole Linked Data project?  (Or, if this constraint is 
> specific to the CRM, then the same point applies more locally. :-) )

Sure you can trust something external to your infomration system. As, for 
instance, a propositional object.

I am afraid we may be talking past each other but it may be too late for me to 
see how…

Best,

Øyvind

> 
> Richard
> 
>> 
>> I may have misunderstood you question so please use smaller spoons if I did!
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Øyvind
>> 
>> 6. feb. 2015 kl. 18:08 skrev Richard Light :
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> If I have interpreted your longer paper correctly, that means that the 
>>> whole co-reference mechanism that the CRM has erected fails to address the 
>>> practical requirement which I would have.  That is, the ability for me to 
>>> indicate that a word or phrase in a source document refers (in my opinion), 
>>> to a specified real-world person (or other non-information object).
>>> 
>>> Have I got this right, and, if so, is there a CRM mechanism which does 
>>> allow me to make this kind of assertion?
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> 
>>> Richard
>>> 
>>> On 04/02/2015 12:06, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> Please find enclosed my homework for issue 230. It consists of two things:
>>>> 
>>>> * New scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment, shortened to keep 
>>>> semantic web complexity out of the CRM. Thanks to Gerald for input.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> * A draft for a document describing the complexity left out of the scope 
>>>> notes, based on Martin's previous scope notes and input from Arianna (but 
>>>> no responsibility on any of them for the result!). This document could be 
>>>> developed into a technical paper referred to from CRM, to an article, or 
>>>> both.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Øyvind
>>>> ___
>>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Richard Light
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Richard Light

Re: [Crm-sig] Homework: issue 230

[Øyvind Eide]

If one source refers to one object, then it is not a co-reference. Then it is a 
reference. 

Co-reference is there to say that you know (for some reason you may specify if 
you want to) that two or more word/phrases refer to the same real-world person. 
The latter can be specififed or it can be left undefined.

I fail to see why co-reference should solve the problem of single propositional 
objects referring to real world objects — we already had mecanisms for that.

I have a feeling that the problems documented in the long paper would apply to 
single references too if the target is not modelled within your information 
system. This may be linked to fundamental problems with the whole linked data 
paradigm. But this is just a feeling so I have to flesh it out more to say 
something evidence based on it.

I may have misunderstood you question so please use smaller spoons if I did!

Regards,

Øyvind

6. feb. 2015 kl. 18:08 skrev Richard Light :

> Hi,
> 
> If I have interpreted your longer paper correctly, that means that the whole 
> co-reference mechanism that the CRM has erected fails to address the 
> practical requirement which I would have.  That is, the ability for me to 
> indicate that a word or phrase in a source document refers (in my opinion), 
> to a specified real-world person (or other non-information object).
> 
> Have I got this right, and, if so, is there a CRM mechanism which does allow 
> me to make this kind of assertion?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Richard
> 
> On 04/02/2015 12:06, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Please find enclosed my homework for issue 230. It consists of two things:
>> 
>> * New scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment, shortened to keep 
>> semantic web complexity out of the CRM. Thanks to Gerald for input.
>> 
>> 
>> * A draft for a document describing the complexity left out of the scope 
>> notes, based on Martin's previous scope notes and input from Arianna (but no 
>> responsibility on any of them for the result!). This document could be 
>> developed into a technical paper referred to from CRM, to an article, or 
>> both.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Øyvind
>> ___
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 
> -- 
> Richard Light

[Crm-sig] Homework 234 d)

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

Here is my homework on the scope note for E4. <>
 The main changes are connected to what we discussed in the last meeting, 
making clear that the spatial area of island cultures may include the sea 
between the islands. I also added a clause about overlapping land use that 
makes sense to me.

In addition, I made a clarification about the relationship between E4 and E53 
which would have helped me if I were a new user. Not sure it fits here, may be 
it should be in E53 and/or in a general part.

The scope note is a bit (too) long but I suppose it will have to be adjusted 
again after the E92 invasion. Maybe we can move some stuff elsewhere then.


Best,

Øyvind

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE E4 IsA E92, E18 IsA E92

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

Seeing E4 Period as a type of E92 Space Time Volume is a stretch, but in some 
sense it feels natural. Period is a temporal entity stretching out in time so 
the similarity to the more general Space Time Volume is in some sense natural.

On the other hand, saying that E18 Physical Thing isa E92 Space Time Volume 
feels strange. Does that not amount to saying that in some sense a thing IS its 
extension in space and time? 

I see the arguments for simplification but the inheritance also needs to be 
ontologically true. Is it? Can something be a space-time thing and a endurant 
at the same time? 

Maybe this establishes a multiple inheritance in E18 Physical Thing as a link 
between the 3D and the 4D world. What would Plato say to that?
;-)


Regards,

Øyvind

On 28. jan. 2015, at 22:45, martin wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> I propose E4 Period and E18 Physical Thing to become subclass
> of E92 Space Time Volume, in the sense of the phenomenal spatiotemporal
> extent, which is necessaryly one-to-one. This will greatly simplify dealing 
> with topological relations between things and periods, and restore 
> consistency that Allen relations are directly attached to the temporal
> entity rather than its time-span. 
> It does not create any existence-period conflict with E4 or E18.
> 
> It further simplifies use of Snapshot to say where things are during some
> time-span.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
>  
> -- 
> 
> --
>  Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
>  Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
>|  Email: 
> mar...@ics.forth.gr
>  |
>  |
>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   |
>  |
>  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] Homework: issue 230

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

Please find enclosed my homework for issue 230. It consists of two things:

* New scope notes for E91 Co-Reference Assignment, shortened to keep semantic 
web complexity out of the CRM. Thanks to Gerald for input. 

E91Co-referenceAssignmentchanges.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document


* A draft for a document describing the complexity left out of the scope notes, 
based on Martin's previous scope notes and input from Arianna (but no 
responsibility on any of them for the result!). This document could be 
developed into a technical paper referred to from CRM, to an article, or both. 

Co-referencewithinandbetweeninformationsystems.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document



Best,

Øyvind

Re: [Crm-sig] "Geographycal" CRM

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Dan,

Thanks a lot for sharing!

A stupid question first: what does "schema" refer to in this context? The one 
sadly missing elements because you have stolen them, I mean?

Best,

Øyvind

On 14. nov. 2014, at 18:39, martin wrote:

> 
> 
> 
>  Original Message 
> Subject:  "Geographycal" CRM
> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:23:29 +0200
> From: Dan Matei 
> To:   crm-sig-ow...@ics.forth.gr
> 
> Friends
> 
>  
> (Still) working on converting my legacy data to CRM+ I arrived to geography 
> :-)
> 
>  
> I felt the need to steel some elements from schema and I came-up with the 
> model (very informally) depicted here: 
> http://www.culturalia.ro/img/CPOT-geo-model-2014-11-12.jpg.
> 
>  
> I could use some criticism, having enough doubts.
> 
>  
> So, please give me advice.
> 
>  
> Dan
> 
>  
> PS. CPOT stands for "CRM Properties of Things" and identifies my local 
> extensions. 
> 
> 
> ---
> Dan Matei
> Institutul Național al Patrimoniului (National Heritage Institute) - București
> Fundația Gellu Naum
> TermRom - Asociația Română de Terminologie
> 
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig