Re: [Crm-sig] Seminar: digital museum documentation
Just confirming and reinforcing Martin's info by adding that the organisation behind, Servicestelle Digitalisierung (digiS) is a unit of Zuse Institute Berlin (ZIB), which has a long tradition in working with museums and contributing to and promoting CIDOC (I've been working there myself for 9 years). Best Regine Am 09.07.2017 um 13:17 schrieb Jutta Lindenthal: Dear Øyvind, I second Martin. Kind regards, Jutta 2017-07-09 13:07 GMT+02:00 Øyvind Eide <mailto:lis...@oeide.no>>: 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 mailto:martin.stric...@hu-berlin.de>>: 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 <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig <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 mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> -- Jutta Lindenthal Mecklenburger Landstraße 5 23570 Lübeck Tel.: 04502-8809421 ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- ___ Regine Stein, Dipl.-Math. Leiterin Informationstechnik -- Deutsches Dokumentationszentrum für Kunstgeschichte Bildarchiv Foto Marburg Philipps-Universität Biegenstraße 11 D-35037 Marburg Tel.: +49 (0) 6421-28 23666 Fax: +49 (0) 6421-28 28931 r.st...@fotomarburg.de -- www.fotomarburg.de | www.bildindex.de
Re: [Crm-sig] FRBRoo / CRM for prints?
Hi, Apparently my message didn't pass through on Friday (since it was too big, apparently due to the citations of E12 and F32 in Martin's email, I removed them now) so I try it again - best, Regine Weitergeleitete Nachricht Betreff:Re: [Crm-sig] FRBRoo / CRM for prints? Datum: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:33:14 +0200 Von:Stein, Regine An: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr, frbr-...@ics.forth.gr Kopie (CC): Gudrun Knaus Dear Christian-Emil, dear Martin, Many thanks for your responses! Our interest is indeed to understand the whole process of artistic printing (firstly in early modern Europe), how the idea of a visual work evolved in the process, what are the relationships between the various (conceptual and physical) objects involved in the process. Making a printing plate always starts with a drawing which may either be a copy of an existing visual work, a painting, or may be intentionally designed for a print, either by the printmaker or by another artist. In German language we typically use in documentation the roles "Inventor" and "Stecher", according to the Latin "INVENIT" and "FECIT" which one can often find in inscriptions (see e.g. engravings by Marcantonio Raimondi with inscription "RAPHA URBI INVEN / MAF" - Raphael invented it / Marcantonio fecit = Marcantonio made it). Then, the same visual idea may be realized in several printing plates. Then, we have prints from different states of this same printing plate, and they are sometimes considered as a new visual work, sometimes just as modification. In order to limit the number of copies a printing plate may be scratched. If we are lucky the printing plate still exists somewhere but obviously in its last state, and earlier states are only known through the prints. Then prints may be compiled into series and so on. As we are dealing with multiples we wonder if FRBRoo is appropriate to approach this, our questions include: - Should we consider multiple realizations of the same drawing in various printing plates as multiple F2 Expression (F24 Publication Expression) of the same F1 Work (F14 Individual Work)? Or are they all different works? - Should we consider different states of one printing plate as F3 Manifestation Product Type? - How to reflect the different states of the printing plate as "used specific object" in E12 Production? - Analysis of what is typically recorded in the documentation in a museum holding one (or multiple) print(s): which information pertains to the Work / Expression (e.g. the subject / P62 depicts), which to the printing plate / F3 Manifestation Product Type (e.g. the state), which to the actual museum object / F4 Item? We are grateful for further comments on this, and will certainly be back to the group as we move on. Btw, the AAT of course differentiates "prints (visual works)" -> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300041273 - or more specifically "engravings (prints)" -> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300041340 "printing plates" -> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300022755 as well as the process of "engraving (printing process)" -> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300053225 Best wishes Regine Am 30.07.2015 um 21:58 schrieb martin: Dear Regine, There has been an implicit discussion in the CRM about prints as production with particular tools. see: E12 Production [...] §Rembrandt’s creating of the seventh state of his etching “Woman sitting half dressed beside a stove”, 1658, identified by Bartsch Number 197 (E12,E65,E81) So, the print plate undergoes "transformations" and implies the creation of an information object being present on the plate(s) and the prints, or, in more creative techniques, the information content of the plate is "incorporated" in the prints. The print plate is "used specific object" in the printing process, but a specialization of E12 may be adequate to fix the specific kind of use and its consequences of information transfer to the copies. We are also discussing a generalization of F32 Carrier Production Event [...] into industrial production, of cars, tools, coins and whatever. Artistic prints with limited copies etc may not be regarded as producing "things of type XXX". A CRM extension into the world of artitstic printing may be interesting. If its only about using AAT vocabulary, Christian-Emil's remark's should be sufficient. I do not know if the AAT differentiates the plate as museum object from the copy. All the best, Martin On 30/7/2015 9:48 μμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: Hi Regine If I understand AAT correctly, it is a thesaurus and is as such a hierarchy of concepts and can be seen as a incarnation of a hierarchy under the E55 Type. In a CRM/FRBRoo context a print is a physical object (one of the items of a series), for instance a lithography, a paper carrying an image or more. A lithography would usually be given the AAT type 'print' (or belong to this type/be a member of the set of objects
Re: [Crm-sig] FRBRoo / CRM for prints?
Hi, Apparently my message didn't pass through on Friday (since it was too big, strange enough) so I try it again - best, Regine Weitergeleitete Nachricht Betreff:Re: [Crm-sig] FRBRoo / CRM for prints? Datum: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:33:14 +0200 Von:Stein, Regine An: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr, frbr-...@ics.forth.gr Kopie (CC): Gudrun Knaus Dear Christian-Emil, dear Martin, Many thanks for your responses! Our interest is indeed to understand the whole process of artistic printing (firstly in early modern Europe), how the idea of a visual work evolved in the process, what are the relationships between the various (conceptual and physical) objects involved in the process. Making a printing plate always starts with a drawing which may either be a copy of an existing visual work, a painting, or may be intentionally designed for a print, either by the printmaker or by another artist. In German language we typically use in documentation the roles "Inventor" and "Stecher", according to the Latin "INVENIT" and "FECIT" which one can often find in inscriptions (see e.g. engravings by Marcantonio Raimondi with inscription "RAPHA URBI INVEN / MAF" - Raphael invented it / Marcantonio fecit = Marcantonio made it). Then, the same visual idea may be realized in several printing plates. Then, we have prints from different states of this same printing plate, and they are sometimes considered as a new visual work, sometimes just as modification. In order to limit the number of copies a printing plate may be scratched. If we are lucky the printing plate still exists somewhere but obviously in its last state, and earlier states are only known through the prints. Then prints may be compiled into series and so on. As we are dealing with multiples we wonder if FRBRoo is appropriate to approach this, our questions include: - Should we consider multiple realizations of the same drawing in various printing plates as multiple F2 Expression (F24 Publication Expression) of the same F1 Work (F14 Individual Work)? Or are they all different works? - Should we consider different states of one printing plate as F3 Manifestation Product Type? - How to reflect the different states of the printing plate as "used specific object" in E12 Production? - Analysis of what is typically recorded in the documentation in a museum holding one (or multiple) print(s): which information pertains to the Work / Expression (e.g. the subject / P62 depicts), which to the printing plate / F3 Manifestation Product Type (e.g. the state), which to the actual museum object / F4 Item? We are grateful for further comments on this, and will certainly be back to the group as we move on. Btw, the AAT of course differentiates "prints (visual works)" -> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300041273 - or more specifically "engravings (prints)" -> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300041340 "printing plates" -> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300022755 as well as the process of "engraving (printing process)" -> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300053225 Best wishes Regine Am 30.07.2015 um 21:58 schrieb martin: Dear Regine, There has been an implicit discussion in the CRM about prints as production with particular tools. see: E12 Production [...] Examples: [...] §Rembrandt’s creating of the seventh state of his etching “Woman sitting half dressed beside a stove”, 1658, identified by Bartsch Number 197 (E12,E65,E81) So, the print plate undergoes "transformations" and implies the creation of an information object being present on the plate(s) and the prints, or, in more creative techniques, the information content of the plate is "incorporated" in the prints. The print plate is "used specific object" in the printing process, but a specialization of E12 may be adequate to fix the specific kind of use and its consequences of information transfer to the copies. We are also discussing a generalization of F32 Carrier Production Event Subclass of:E12 <#_E12_Production_>Production Scope note:This class comprises activities that result in instances of F54 Utilized Information Carrier 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 property /R27 used as source material/ F24 Publication Expression. into industrial production, of cars, tools, coins and whatever. Artistic prints with limited copies etc may not be regarded as producing "things of type XXX". A CRM extension
Re: [Crm-sig] Documentation Modelling Question
Hi Daniel, A somewhat related issue is that we are unable to find a mapping from a LIDO resourceSet to Cidoc CRM. Its a similar issue, maybe all resources are just documents that document the object. This is indeed correct, a lido:resourceSet - with its documentary character as "a surrogate of the object / work" - is a E31 Document, with lido:resourceSet P70 documents: E24 Physical Man-Made Thing Best wishes, Regine Am 10.06.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Christian-Emil Smith Ore: Hi E31 Document is a subclass of E73 Information Object as shown below. There is an aspect of intentionality connected to instances of this class . The property P70 reflect this as well: E31 Document. P70 documents (is documented in): E1 CRM Entity (Scope note: This property describes the CRM Entities documented by instances of E31 Document. Documents may describe any conceivable entity, hence the link to the highest-level entity in the CRM hierarchy. This property is intended for cases where a reference is regarded as being of a documentary character, in the scholarly or scientific sense) There is a similar property for visual objects not claiming documentation. E36 Visual Item P138 represents (has representation): E1 CRM Entity (Scopenote: This property establishes the relationship between an E36 Visual Item and the entity that it visually represents.) Both P70 and P138 are subproperties of the general E89 Propositional Object. P67 refers to (is referred to by): E1 CRM Entity (Scopenote:This property documents that an E89 Propositional Object makes a statement about an instance of E1 CRM) As the scope note says: . P70 documents property is intended for cases where a reference is regarded as being of a documentary character, in the scholarly or scientific sense I haven't had a look at LIDO for years, so somebody else has to answer that question. Regards Christian-Emil E31 Document Subclass of:E73 Information Object Superclass of: E32 Authority Document Scope note: This class comprises identifiable immaterial items that make propositions about reality. These propositions may be expressed in text, graphics, images, audiograms, videograms or by other similar means. Documentation databases are regarded as a special case of E31 Document. This class should not be confused with the term “document” in Information Technology, which is compatible with E73 Information Object. Examples: the Encyclopaedia Britannica (E32) The image content of the photo of the Allied Leaders at Yalta published by UPI, 1945 (E38) the Doomsday Book Properties: P70 documents (is documented in): E1 CRM Entity -Original Message- From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of daniel riley Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 5:55 PM To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: [Crm-sig] Documentation Modelling Question Hello All, If this is not the correct place to post this please let me know, but I can't find any other CRM support resources. I am currently working on our provenance system for artworks. Occasionally we need to add evidence of certain events. For instance, the art production event may be accompanied by an image that documents that event (artist w/ artwork). Also a transfer of ownership event may be accompanied by a file representing a receipt. What would be the best way to associate these types of 'evidence' with existing Cidoc CRM events? The most obvious seems: E30 Document - P70 Documents - E1 Entity (entity could be the event or the object), but just wanted to check that that would be the most correct way. A somewhat related issue is that we are unable to find a mapping from a LIDO resourceSet to Cidoc CRM. Its a similar issue, maybe all resources are just documents that document the object. Thanks for any guidance, Daniel Riley Verisart ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- _______ Regine Stein, Dipl.-Math. Leiterin Informationstechnik -- Deutsches Dokumentationszentrum für Kunstgeschichte Bildarchiv Foto Marburg Philipps-Universität Biegenstraße 11 D-35037 Marburg Tel.: +49 (0) 6421-28 23666 Fax: +49 (0) 6421-28 28931 r.st...@fotomarburg.de -- www.fotomarburg.de | www.bildindex.de
Re: [Crm-sig] Bibliographic data in CRM / LIDO
Dear all, See my previous message to the list: "[...] And at this occasion analyzing to which extent the LIDO schema would fit with the requirements of an explicit format for bibliographic / book industry product information. This does of course not imply that LIDO should be used for this kind of data [...]" However, we shouldn't conceal that for achieving full interoperability by "mapping everything to RDF under CRM-FRBRoo" we still need in contrast agreed / authoritative encodings, and an analysis as Michael is carrying out might well facilitate agreed specialisations as they are needed e.g. for sub-properties, and thereby fostering interoperability. Best, Regine Am 21.06.2012 18:17, schrieb martin: On 21/6/2012 7:08 ??, Michael Hopwood wrote: The LIDO schema itself does not prohibit creating LIDO records for conceptual objects. Dear Michael, It is also my understanding that LIDO is not intended for such material. Seeing your question originally, I assumed you talk about adding bibliographic references to museum objects. By sure, abusing an XML schema for another domain, albeit not explicitly excluded, does not help interoperability. Interoperability should come at an aggregation/integration level by mapping everything to RDF under CRM-FRBRoo-. But I send this message to Regine, who's the authority for LIDO. 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| -- -- _______ Regine Stein, Dipl.-Math. Leiterin Informationstechnik -- Deutsches Dokumentationszentrum für Kunstgeschichte Bildarchiv Foto Marburg Philipps-Universität Biegenstraße 11 D-35037 Marburg Tel.: +49 (0) 6421-28 23666 Fax: +49 (0) 6421-28 28931 r.st...@fotomarburg.de -- www.fotomarburg.de | www.bildindex.de
Re: [Crm-sig] [Frbr-crm] Bibliographic data in CRM / LIDO - authoritative mappings, help urgently requested
Dear all, Apologies for the delayed reply. I believe that we have first of all to clearly distinguish between the different goals of the models here under discussion. If I haven't misunderstood the whole thing over the last few years - CIDOC-CRM as well as FRBRoo are conceptual models, ontologies which capture and represent the semantics encountered in museum and bibliographic information. Both are primarily and authoritatively described and defined in natural language, and encodings in any technical format provide implementations, but not definitions of the model. There are no authoritative - LIDO as well as ONIX, in contrast, are XML-based metadata standards, both defined as XML Schema. LIDO, being an application of the CRM, provides an explicit format to deliver museum information in a standardized way. ONIX provides an explicit format for book industry product information. To my understanding the well worthwhile task Michael Hopwood is undertaking, is a schema crosswalk between LIDO and ONIX which of course has to be based on the conceptual models CRM and FRBRoo. And at this occasion analyzing to which extent the LIDO schema would fit with the requirements of an explicit format for bibliographic / book industry product information. This does of course not imply that LIDO should be used for this kind of data - it's in the first instance an analysis to highlight matches and limits and thereby facilitate the understanding and work for people who work with these schema in practice (and are not necessarily that familiar with the whole conceptual background) - e.g. sending data to Europeana. This said all such work must of course rely on the proper schema definitions (so e.g. inscriptions are clearly bound to a physical carrier according to the LIDO schema as well as the CRM definition). Best regards, Regine Stein (Co-chair CIDOC Working Group Data Harvesting and Interchange, being the "LIDO home") Am 21.06.2012 12:24, schrieb patrick.le-bo...@bnf.fr: Dear all, I confess I am totally perplexed by the request. I am not a LIDO specialist, but it seems to me simply impossible to map ONIX to LIDO, as they were not designed to describe the same things (as is correctly demonstrated in reference [4]). ONIX can be mapped to library formats such as MARC formats or MODS, but LIDO was designed to account for physical objects, not abstract notions such as publications; the only element of "non-uniqueness" I can find in LIDO is the mention of the state/edition to which a specific art print or photograph print belongs (but a LIDO record is designed to account for the specific print as a physical object, not to describe the abstract notion of "state"). In my (possibly wrong) understanding, "authoritative examples of CIDOC-CRM and/or LIDO data records or sets for bibliographic objects" cannot be provided, as such examples simply cannot exist. Assistance "with the decisions on semantics, syntax and mapping rules to translate ONIX structures into LIDO" cannot be provided either, as ONIX structures, in my (possibly wrong) opinion, simply cannot be translated into LIDO. The suggestion that a manifestation could be described in LIDO as though it were a unique item does not seem to me particularly helpful. What is the point of doing so? And regarding a printed text as a specific case of "inscription" seems to me to be stretching the LIDO (and CRM) notion of "inscription" too far. The temptative mapping from UNIMARC to CRM, to which Michael Hopwood refers in his message, is a demonstration that it is impossible to map from a model or format designed to account for abstractions to a model or format designed to account for unique physical things. As Martin puts it, FRBRoo would be a better match for a mapping target from ONIX (and ). Besides, I do not understand why ONIX should be mapped to LIDO in the first place (I failed to discover the "background on how and why" in reference [4], although I found that document extremely interesting). But I leave it to LIDO specialists to send a more comprehensive answer to Michael Hopwood. Best wishes, Patrick Le Boeuf (National Library of France, and member of the CIDOC CRM/FRBR Harmonisation Group) Message de : *martin * 18/06/2012 19:17 Envoyé par : *frbr-crm-boun...@ics.forth.gr* Pour crm-sig@ics.forth.gr, FRBR Group Copie Objet Re: [Frbr-crm] [Crm-sig] Bibliographic data in CRM / LIDO - authoritative mappings, help urgently requested Dear Michael, I forward your request to the FRBR-CRM Harmization Group. I'd expect CRM-FRBRoo would provide a much better fit, but the colleagues from IFLA are THE experts in this respect. Thank you for your questions! I hope you will get enough answers, otherwise, ask again. Best Martin On 18/6/2012 7:12 ??, Michael Hopwood wrote: Hello CRM and LIDO
Re: [Crm-sig] LIDO semantics - "Inscriptions" on/in mass-produced media
Hi Michael, Trying a quick answer for a late Thursday-Friday. An inscription is clearly bound to a physical carrier, as the LIDO spec states by talking of "[...] *physical* lettering [...] that are affixed [...], incscribed, or attached to the object / work", in compliance with E34 Inscription in the CRM. As you start "I want to include descriptions..." - all the information you address here goes imo into lido:objectDescriptionSet, being typed according to your needs with lido:type attribute. Best, Regine Am 30.03.2012 14:23, schrieb Michael Hopwood: Hello all, A quick question on the LIDO semantics for a Friday. I want to include descriptions or possibly even transcriptions of part of the text of published books, lyrics of recorded music, audio dialogue of film assets, possibly words appearing in photo images... Can this be included within LIDO:Inscriptions? Spec says: "A transcription or description of any distinguishing or identifying physical lettering, annotations, texts, markings, or labels that are affixed, applied, stamped, written, inscribed, or attached to the object / work, excluding any mark or text inherent in the materials of which it is made." The object/work in this case is actually a FRBRoo Manifestation Product Type, so in what sense does it have "Inscriptions"? Thanks, Michael Hopwood Linked Heritage Project Lead EDItEUR United House, North Road London N7 9DP UK Tel: +44 20 7503 6418 Mob: +44 7811 591036 Skype: michael.hopwood.editeur http://www.linkedheritage.org/ http://editeur.org/ The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform the sender and delete this e-mail immediately. The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. We cannot accept any responsibility for viruses, so please scan all attachments. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the company. EDItEUR Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no 2994705. Registered Office:6TH FLOOR, 25 FARRINGDON STREET, LONDON, EC4A 4AB, UNITED KINGDOM -- _______ Regine Stein, Dipl.-Math. Head of Information Technology -- German Documentation Center for Art History Bildarchiv Foto Marburg Philipps-Universität Biegenstraße 11 D-35037 Marburg Tel.: +49 (0) 6421-28 23666 Fax: +49 (0) 6421-28 28931 r.st...@fotomarburg.de -- www.fotomarburg.de | www.bildindex.de
Re: [Crm-sig] URI to refer to CIDOC-CRM and FRBRoo namespace(s) and concepts?
Hi, This requires indeed some official fixing since composing the URI from http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crm-concepts/ plus entity number e.g. http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crm-concepts/E22 was the advice given by ICS-FORTH at the time of delivering LIDO v1.0. (and the LIDO spec follows it btw consistently, differences below seem to be due to word-wraps) Please let us know if these are not valid anymore (which I wouldn't consider best practice..) Best, Regine Am 26.03.2012 18:18, schrieb Vladimir Alexiev: Hi Michael! The LIDO spec says: "CIDOC-CRM concept definitions are given at http://www.cidoccrm.org/crm-concepts/ Data values in the sub-element term may often be: Man-Made Object (with conceptID "http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crm-concepts/E22;), Man-Made Feature (http://www.cidoc-rm.org/crmconcepts/E25), Collection (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmconcepts/E78)." I think this is bad advice on several fronts: - I see 4 URLs above, and all 4 are different ;-) - It doesn't refer to the official release URI (see below) - I think that using numbers only, without the English labels, is calling for trouble and errors The page http://www.cidoc-crm.org/official_release_cidoc.html lists some oficial URIs. I would use this one: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm-english-label . This URL resolves (following linked data principles) and redirects to the current version: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/5.0.4/cidoc-crm-english-label Martin, I'd suggest several fixes: 1. Please make the official URIs into links: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm-english-label and http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm . 2. Please fix this link later in the page to use the same URI for the current version: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc_crm_v5.0.4_english_label.rdfs 3. Fix the MIME type returned by the server -- currently it is: curl --head http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/5.0.4/cidoc-crm-english-label Content-Type: text/xml -- should be: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-MIME-Type Content-Type: application/rdf+xml Can I just add on the relevant FRBRoo term ID (e.g. F26 for movies) to the URI prefix for CRM? E.g. yielding "http://www.cidoccrm.org/crm-concepts/F26;? You shouldn't, as these are separate ontologies 2. Is there a URI to denote CIDOC-CRM or FRBRoo itself as the "source" of a concept? I.e. the URI for the concept scheme? Do you mean SKOS "concept scheme"? Cheers! Vladimir ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] Sibiu meeting
Dear all, the CIDOC Working Group Data Harvesting and Interchange will discuss in its Sibiu meeting as one major topic the results of the full mapping of the LIDO format (see http://www.lido-schema.org) to the CRM. So we would like to invite the CRM-SIG to join the LIDO WG for this discussion which will take place on Monday, 4th, 15-17h. Please let us know about your plans for the CRM-SIG meeting and if anybody can be present in our meeting. Best Regine Am 14.08.2011 20:20, schrieb martin: Dear All, I may not be able to come to CIDOC 2011 in Sibiu. Could someone take the lead for the CRM-SIG working group meeting there? Best, Martin ___ Regine Stein, Dipl.-Math. Head of Information Technology -- German Documentation Center for Art History Bildarchiv Foto Marburg Philipps-Universitaet Biegenstraße 11 D-35037 Marburg Tel.: +49 (0) 6421-28 23666 Fax: +49 (0) 6421-28 28931 r.st...@fotomarburg.de <mailto:r.st...@fotomarburg.de> -- www.fotomarburg.de <http://www.fotomarburg.de> |www.bildindex.de <http://www.bildindex.de>
Re: [Crm-sig] Call for Comments
Of course the URI must be open to everybody. But when the term LOD is used in the document it does refer more generally to a descriptive dataset about the material object (to support identification), or am I mistaken? Regine Am 30.05.2011 23:06, schrieb Christian-Emil Ore: I understand Regine's concern. However, there is a pedagogical job to do for CIDOC. The idea, as Max writes, is that the URI is open to everybody eg to be used in Object-ID connections. Chr-Emil On 30.05.2011 22:48, Regine Stein wrote: Martin, I can't see a clear notion on "what the term is now", also from other's comments. Why ignoring serious sensibilities in the museum community - we are aiming at their contribution, aren't we? Regine Am 30.05.2011 21:07, schrieb martin: Dear Max, Regine, yes, I support the latter statement. The term is Linked Open Data now, and the Recommendation itself is only about the URIs for the material object, not about what and how much content should be revealed, not even about linking. Therefore I prefer to stay with the term as is. Best, Martin On 5/30/2011 10:32 AM, Maximilian Schich wrote: Hi Regine and all, In principle, I think, we can all imagine Linked Data that is non-open - and in house museum inventory databases might be so very likely. But the whole point about publishing identifier URIs for museum objects is that they are available for everybody to cite. So indeed in our case the data should be Linked Open Data. Also - notwithstanding my high regard of TBL - just because a concept was introduced by him does not make it more letigimate, just as building reconstructions do not become more realistic if we can attribute them to Andrea Palladio. Best, Max Dr. Maximilian Schich http://www.schich.info http://artshumanities.netsci2011.net Am 29.05.11 18:13, schrieb Regine Stein: Dear Martin, dear all, Apologies for the very late comment (however just in time for the deadline May 30th ;-)) I have one simple recommendation: Please replace "Linked Open Data" by "Linked Data" throughout the whole documents (and URL). First because Linked Data is the original term as it was invented by TBL if I'm not mistaken. Second because there is a serious debate ongoing on what "Open" means in Linked Open Data. E.g. according to the current view in Europeana office it means that all data to be published as LOD has to be public domain whereas many representatives of Europeana museum projects do question this requirement. Though this might appear to be a Europeana specific discussion I think there is no point for CIDOC to potentially cause confusion about the issue. Best wishes Regine Am 21.03.2011 17:02, schrieb martin: Dear All, Your comments on http://www.cidoc-crm.org/URIs_and_Linked_Open_Data.html will be most welcome! Best, Martin ___ 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 Comments
Martin, I can't see a clear notion on "what the term is now", also from other's comments. Why ignoring serious sensibilities in the museum community - we are aiming at their contribution, aren't we? Regine Am 30.05.2011 21:07, schrieb martin: Dear Max, Regine, yes, I support the latter statement. The term is Linked Open Data now, and the Recommendation itself is only about the URIs for the material object, not about what and how much content should be revealed, not even about linking. Therefore I prefer to stay with the term as is. Best, Martin On 5/30/2011 10:32 AM, Maximilian Schich wrote: Hi Regine and all, In principle, I think, we can all imagine Linked Data that is non-open - and in house museum inventory databases might be so very likely. But the whole point about publishing identifier URIs for museum objects is that they are available for everybody to cite. So indeed in our case the data should be Linked Open Data. Also - notwithstanding my high regard of TBL - just because a concept was introduced by him does not make it more letigimate, just as building reconstructions do not become more realistic if we can attribute them to Andrea Palladio. Best, Max Dr. Maximilian Schich http://www.schich.info http://artshumanities.netsci2011.net Am 29.05.11 18:13, schrieb Regine Stein: Dear Martin, dear all, Apologies for the very late comment (however just in time for the deadline May 30th ;-)) I have one simple recommendation: Please replace "Linked Open Data" by "Linked Data" throughout the whole documents (and URL). First because Linked Data is the original term as it was invented by TBL if I'm not mistaken. Second because there is a serious debate ongoing on what "Open" means in Linked Open Data. E.g. according to the current view in Europeana office it means that all data to be published as LOD has to be public domain whereas many representatives of Europeana museum projects do question this requirement. Though this might appear to be a Europeana specific discussion I think there is no point for CIDOC to potentially cause confusion about the issue. Best wishes Regine Am 21.03.2011 17:02, schrieb martin: Dear All, Your comments on http://www.cidoc-crm.org/URIs_and_Linked_Open_Data.html will be most welcome! Best, Martin ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] Call for Comments
Hi Max and all, To my understanding the recommendation simply does not make any assumption about openness, but deals with identification in the Linked Data field. It btw even notes explicitly (6.) "that such a service is not mandatory for the URI to be valid". Having URIs for museum objects available for everybody to cite is different from publishing the information about these objects as LOD... I fully agree with Richard saying "Much as I would like all museum LD to be LOD, I wouldn't want to discourage good LD practice..." And the issue is more complex than just open vs. non-open: What is open? Is any CC-license "open enough"? Or is CC0 (=public domain) mandatory to be labelled as LOD? So this is exactly what I'd prefer to avoid: to mix up these two very different topics of identification and openness in the recommendation. Best, Regine Am 30.05.2011 09:32, schrieb Maximilian Schich: Hi Regine and all, In principle, I think, we can all imagine Linked Data that is non-open - and in house museum inventory databases might be so very likely. But the whole point about publishing identifier URIs for museum objects is that they are available for everybody to cite. So indeed in our case the data should be Linked Open Data. Also - notwithstanding my high regard of TBL - just because a concept was introduced by him does not make it more letigimate, just as building reconstructions do not become more realistic if we can attribute them to Andrea Palladio. Best, Max Dr. Maximilian Schich http://www.schich.info http://artshumanities.netsci2011.net Am 29.05.11 18:13, schrieb Regine Stein: Dear Martin, dear all, Apologies for the very late comment (however just in time for the deadline May 30th ;-)) I have one simple recommendation: Please replace "Linked Open Data" by "Linked Data" throughout the whole documents (and URL). First because Linked Data is the original term as it was invented by TBL if I'm not mistaken. Second because there is a serious debate ongoing on what "Open" means in Linked Open Data. E.g. according to the current view in Europeana office it means that all data to be published as LOD has to be public domain whereas many representatives of Europeana museum projects do question this requirement. Though this might appear to be a Europeana specific discussion I think there is no point for CIDOC to potentially cause confusion about the issue. Best wishes Regine Am 21.03.2011 17:02, schrieb martin: Dear All, Your comments on http://www.cidoc-crm.org/URIs_and_Linked_Open_Data.html will be most welcome! Best, Martin ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] Call for Comments
Dear Martin, dear all, Apologies for the very late comment (however just in time for the deadline May 30th ;-)) I have one simple recommendation: Please replace "Linked Open Data" by "Linked Data" throughout the whole documents (and URL). First because Linked Data is the original term as it was invented by TBL if I'm not mistaken. Second because there is a serious debate ongoing on what "Open" means in Linked Open Data. E.g. according to the current view in Europeana office it means that all data to be published as LOD has to be public domain whereas many representatives of Europeana museum projects do question this requirement. Though this might appear to be a Europeana specific discussion I think there is no point for CIDOC to potentially cause confusion about the issue. Best wishes Regine Am 21.03.2011 17:02, schrieb martin: Dear All, Your comments on http://www.cidoc-crm.org/URIs_and_Linked_Open_Data.html will be most welcome! Best, Martin -- _______ Regine Stein, Dipl.-Math. Head of Information Technology -- German Documentation Center for Art History Bildarchiv Foto Marburg Philipps-Universität Biegenstraße 11 D-35037 Marburg Tel.: +49 (0) 6421-28 23666 Fax: +49 (0) 6421-28 28931 r.st...@fotomarburg.de -- www.fotomarburg.de |www.bildindex.de
[Crm-sig] INVITATION / CfP - CIDOC conference 2011 - Sibiu, Romania, September 4 - 9
Dear all, we would like to invite You to take part in the CIDOC 2011 conference in Sibiu, Romania September 4-9 2011. The theme is "Knowledge management and museums" - Knowledge management lies at the very heart of CIDOC's concerns since recording and transmitting knowledge about collections and their history is the ultimate objective of all museum documentation. - We welcome all Your contributions and participation! Call for Contributions at: http://cidoc2011.brukenthalmuseum.eu/cidoc/uk/file/Call.pdf General information and program at: http://cidoc2011.brukenthalmuseum.eu/cidoc/uk/index.html Contact person: iu...@brukenthalmuseum.eu Welcome! Regine Stein CIDOC Secretary _______ Regine Stein, Dipl.-Math. Head of Information Technology -- German Documentation Center for Art History Bildarchiv Foto Marburg Philipps-Universitaet BiegenstraÃe 11 D-35037 Marburg Tel.: +49 (0) 6421-28 23666 Fax: +49 (0) 6421-28 28931 r.st...@fotomarburg.de -- www.fotomarburg.de | www.bildindex.de
[Crm-sig] LIDO - Lightweight Information Describing Objects
Dear colleagues, The CIDOC Working Group "Data harvesting and interchange" has made available the specification of LIDO v0.9 through http://cidoc.icom.museum/WG_Data_Harvesting(en)(E1).xml Please find there LIDO Handout: http://www.lido-schema.org/documents/LIDO-Handout.pdf LIDO v0.9 XML Schema Definition: http://www.lido-schema.org/schema/v0.9/lido-v0.9.xsd LIDO v0.9 Specification Document: http://www.lido-schema.org/schema/v0.9/lido-v0.9-specification.pdf LIDO v0.9 HTML Reference: http://www.lido-schema.org/schema/v0.9/lido-v0.9-schema-listing.html LIDO, specified as XML Schema, is the result of a joint effort of the CDWA Lite, museumdat, SPECTRUM and CIDOC CRM communities. The schema combines the CDWA Lite and museumdat schemas and is informed by SPECTRUM. Being CIDOC-CRM compliant, it aims at contributing information of all kinds of museum objects for resource discovery. We like to ask for feedback to the LIDO material preferably until September 18th, 2010. We look forward to your comments! Best, Regine -- _______ Regine Stein, Dipl.-Math. Head of Information Technology -- German Documentation Center for Art History Bildarchiv Foto Marburg Philipps-Universität Biegenstraße 11 D-35037 Marburg Tel.: +49 (0) 6421-28 23666 Fax: +49 (0) 6421-28 28931 r.st...@fotomarburg.de -- www.fotomarburg.de | www.bildindex.de
Re: [Crm-sig] Mapping of museumdat and CDWA Lite
Dear All Thanks for your input, Mika. As I'm unable to attend the London meeting I'd like to ask all of you to send me any feedback you'll have on museumdat, especially for sure what will be discussed within 6. Transformation software (museumdat-> RDFS CRM/OWL). Next week we'll have in conjunction with MCN's Annual Conference in Washington, DC a two-day meeting of the CDWA Lite/ museumdat Working Group dedicated to come to agree on several issues in creating a common schema. This will also be an opportunity to contribute any feedback from the CRM-SIG so please provide me with your comments. For those who haven't taken a look see http://www.museumdat.org/index.php?ln=en=home Best Regine -- Regine Stein -- Head of Information Technology German Documentation Center for Art History - Bildarchiv Foto Marburg Philipps-Universität Biegenstraße 11 D-35037 Marburg Tel. 0049-(0)6421 - 28 23666 Fax 0049-(0)6421 - 28 28931 Email r.st...@fotomarburg.de -- www.fotomarburg.de www.bildindex.de Synapse Computing Oy schrieb: Dear All Enclosed is an arrangement where museumdat is mapped to CDWA Lite. The primary purpose of this arrangement is to implicitely illustrate the mapping of museumdat to CIDOC CRM as a step to making the linkage between the two standards explicit. Another purpose is to facilitate the construction of database schemata. A third purpose is to facilitate linking of thesauri and authority lists to these database schemata. The document may serve as a background aid to the discussion on Friday 7th Nov. 9:30-11:00 where the themes are Discuss about the short document for archive community Discuss about the extensions to CRM and how to organize them Ontology and data structures Use of cardinality constraints and use cases Co reference and CRM Transformation software (museumdat-> RDFS CRM/OWL) It can be printed out in A3 format or read on a screen at 70% zoom. Regards! Mika Synapse Computing Oy, Arabiankatu 2, 00560 Helsinki i...@synapse-computing.com +358-9-8569 9696 puh/tel +358-9-8569 9595 fax
Re: [crm-sig] New members, CALL FOR VOTE
I agree, Regine Regine Stein - Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum fur Informationstechnik (ZIB) Takustr. 7 D-14 195 Berlin URL: www.zib.de - Tel. +49-30 841 85 - 331 Fax. +49-30 841 85 - 269 Email st...@zib.de - Original Message - From: "martin" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:40 AM Subject: [crm-sig] New members, CALL FOR VOTE > Dear All, > > We have expression of interest to actively participate in the CIDOC CRM-SIG > by: > > Detlev Balzer, Hamburg, Germany, > Database Consultancy to Cultural Institutions, > collaborator of the Joint European Filmography > (http://www.ace-film.de/english/frame01a.htm), > > Jutta Lindenthal, Frankfurt, Germany, > Representing the "Thesaurus Nationalsozialismus und Holocaust", Berlin, > and member of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Gedenkstaettenbibliotheken > (Working Group of the Memorial Libraries, AGGB, Germany). > > Please let me know until May 7, if you agree or disagree. > > best, > > Martin > > -- > > -- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(810)391625 | > Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(810)391609 | > Project Leader SIS| Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | > | >Information Systems Laboratory| > Institute of Computer Science| >Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | > Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -- > > >
[crm-sig] Scope Notes P31-40
Dear All, I attach my first draft for the scope notes P31 - P41. I tried to give for each property a simple example of usage and I think it would be really helpful to do this for each property even if it seems obvious. I'm sorry that I will not be able to join the meeting in California - hope to see you next time, best wishes Regine Regine Stein - Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum für Informationstechnik (ZIB) Takustr. 7 D-14 195 Berlin URL: www.zib.de - Tel. +49-30 841 85 - 331 Fax. +49-30 841 85 - 269 Email st...@zib.de P31-40scopenotes.rtf Description: MS-Word document
Re: [crm-sig] CIDOC-CRM SIG - CALL FOR VOTE
I agree with CRM version 3.2 as Committee Draft YES
