Re: [Crm-sig] CRM Methodology PLEASE READ AND COMMENT

[Carlisle, Philip]

I’ve just cut and pasted the ‘computer’ and ‘mouse’ symbols from example 7.2 
into a blank word document and they come back with a ‘smiley face’ and ‘sad 
face’ symbol so I think they are the same as the ‘+’ and ‘-‘ of the other 
examples.

Phil

Phil Carlisle
Knowledge Organization Specialist
Listing Group, Historic England
Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824

http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/
http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/

Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are valued 
for their skills and knowledge, and where communication, customer focus and 
working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do.



[Historic England Logo]<http://www.historicengland.org.uk/>


We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic environment, and 
protect it for the future. Historic England<http://bit.ly/1OuxROd> is a public 
body, and we champion everyone’s heritage, across England.
Follow us:  Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/HistoricEngland>  |  
Twitter<https://twitter.com/HistoricEngland>  |  
Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/historicengland/> Sign up to our 
newsletter<http://bit.ly/1p49z1e>


Help us create a list of the 100 places which tell England's remarkable story 
and its impact on the world. A History of England in 100 
Places<https://historicengland.org.uk/100places> sponsored by 
Ecclesiastical<http://www.ecclesiastical.com/fororganisations/insurance/heritageinsurance/100-places/index.aspx>.



This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal 
views which are not the views of Historic England unless specifically stated. 
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify 
the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way 
nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic England may become 
publicly available.

From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Richard Light
Sent: 04 January 2018 12:50
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] CRM Methodology PLEASE READ AND COMMENT


On 14/12/2017 21:48, Martin Doerr wrote:

This statement "some of the examples provided are currently too cryptic to be 
helpful." is too general to be helpful ;-);-)...please tell us which ones:-)
As a general point I don't understand why there are two 'Eg' sections for each 
principle.  Some have a screen icon by the first and a mouse icon by the 
second; others have '+' by the first and '-' by the second. Is it that you 
would like there to be two examples for each principle, or do they play 
different roles?  (In some, e.g. 1.2, there are two points in the first Eg and 
none in the second, suggesting they serve different purposes.)

Specifics:

  *   2.1 TADIRAH "Research Object" needs a note explaining (presumably) that 
the research intention has no impact on an object being a member of the 
"object" class
  *   6.4 Getty’s ‘Object ID’, the EAD - what do these demonstrate as regards 
mandatory/optional properties?
  *   7.1 both examples here are too cryptic: please explain what they 
show/what should be done with them
  *   7.2 is the first part of the second Eg making a different point to the 
first Eg? If so, it's not clear what it is. Second part of second Eg also 
cryptic
  *   7.3 examples are unexplained, though I get the general idea. The 
re-appearance of "Research Object" (TADIRAH) also raises the question whether 
7.3 is different in substance from 2.1
  *   7.4 "hamlet - village" looks like a completion of the first Eg; it's not 
clear what we're advising to do about "ship - boat"
  *   8.1 isn't the second Eg the conclusion of the first one?
  *   8.2 the purpose of the second set of Egs isn't clear

Best wishes,

Richard
--
Richard Light

Re: [Crm-sig] CRM Methodology PLEASE READ AND COMMENT

[Carlisle, Philip]

Hi Richard,

I agree the Examples need to be clearer especially those using symbols.

I took the ‘+’ and ‘-‘ to mean that one example was a good/positive example 
whereas the other was an example of what you shouldn’t do (bad/negative).

Are the symbols meant to do the same? If so can we standardize or provide a 
legend to clarify what is intended? Even include an annotated example of a 
principle perhaps.

Phil


Phil Carlisle
Knowledge Organization Specialist
Listing Group, Historic England
Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824

http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/
http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/

Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are valued 
for their skills and knowledge, and where communication, customer focus and 
working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do.



[Historic England Logo]<http://www.historicengland.org.uk/>


We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic environment, and 
protect it for the future. Historic England<http://bit.ly/1OuxROd> is a public 
body, and we champion everyone’s heritage, across England.
Follow us:  Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/HistoricEngland>  |  
Twitter<https://twitter.com/HistoricEngland>  |  
Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/historicengland/> Sign up to our 
newsletter<http://bit.ly/1p49z1e>


Help us create a list of the 100 places which tell England's remarkable story 
and its impact on the world. A History of England in 100 
Places<https://historicengland.org.uk/100places> sponsored by 
Ecclesiastical<http://www.ecclesiastical.com/fororganisations/insurance/heritageinsurance/100-places/index.aspx>.



This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal 
views which are not the views of Historic England unless specifically stated. 
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify 
the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way 
nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic England may become 
publicly available.

From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Richard Light
Sent: 04 January 2018 12:50
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] CRM Methodology PLEASE READ AND COMMENT


On 14/12/2017 21:48, Martin Doerr wrote:

This statement "some of the examples provided are currently too cryptic to be 
helpful." is too general to be helpful ;-);-)...please tell us which ones:-)
As a general point I don't understand why there are two 'Eg' sections for each 
principle.  Some have a screen icon by the first and a mouse icon by the 
second; others have '+' by the first and '-' by the second. Is it that you 
would like there to be two examples for each principle, or do they play 
different roles?  (In some, e.g. 1.2, there are two points in the first Eg and 
none in the second, suggesting they serve different purposes.)

Specifics:

  *   2.1 TADIRAH "Research Object" needs a note explaining (presumably) that 
the research intention has no impact on an object being a member of the 
"object" class
  *   6.4 Getty’s ‘Object ID’, the EAD - what do these demonstrate as regards 
mandatory/optional properties?
  *   7.1 both examples here are too cryptic: please explain what they 
show/what should be done with them
  *   7.2 is the first part of the second Eg making a different point to the 
first Eg? If so, it's not clear what it is. Second part of second Eg also 
cryptic
  *   7.3 examples are unexplained, though I get the general idea. The 
re-appearance of "Research Object" (TADIRAH) also raises the question whether 
7.3 is different in substance from 2.1
  *   7.4 "hamlet - village" looks like a completion of the first Eg; it's not 
clear what we're advising to do about "ship - boat"
  *   8.1 isn't the second Eg the conclusion of the first one?
  *   8.2 the purpose of the second set of Egs isn't clear

Best wishes,

Richard
--
Richard Light

Re: [Crm-sig] CRM Methodology PLEASE READ AND COMMENT

[Richard Light]

On 14/12/2017 21:48, Martin Doerr wrote:
>
> This statement "some of the examples provided are currently too
> cryptic to be helpful." is too general to be helpful ;-);-)...please
> tell us which ones:-)
As a general point I don't understand why there are two 'Eg' sections
for each principle.  Some have a screen icon by the first and a mouse
icon by the second; others have '+' by the first and '-' by the second.
Is it that you would like there to be two examples for each principle,
or do they play different roles?  (In some, e.g. 1.2, there are two
points in the first Eg and none in the second, suggesting they serve
different purposes.)

Specifics:

  * 2.1 TADIRAH "Research Object" needs a note explaining (presumably)
that the research intention has no impact on an object being a
member of the "object" class
  * 6.4Getty’s ‘Object ID’, the EAD - what do these demonstrate as
regards mandatory/optional properties?
  * 7.1 both examples here are too cryptic: please explain what they
show/what should be done with them
  * 7.2 is the first part of the second Eg making a different point to
the first Eg? If so, it's not clear what it is. Second part of
second Eg also cryptic
  * 7.3 examples are unexplained, though I get the general idea. The
re-appearance of "Research Object" (TADIRAH) also raises the
question whether 7.3 is different in substance from 2.1
  * 7.4 "hamlet - village" looks like a completion of the first Eg; it's
not clear what we're advising to do about "ship - boat"
  * 8.1 isn't the second Eg the conclusion of the first one?
  * 8.2 the purpose of the second set of Egs isn't clear

Best wishes,

Richard

-- 
*Richard Light*

Re: [Crm-sig] CRM Methodology PLEASE READ AND COMMENT

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Richard,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I have introduced this 
more technical introduction in the new version, in order to give

a more practical context.

Would you like to write a roadmap?

"assuming they know little or nothing about this subject" is by sure not 
the intention. The document is definitely not meant as an introduction 
or a self-teaching material, but as a compact reference after having got 
other training about the matter. This should be stated in the very 
beginning.


This statement "some of the examples provided are currently too cryptic 
to be helpful." is too general to be helpful ;-);-)...please tell us 
which ones:-)


All the best,

Martin

On 10/19/2017 3:14 PM, Richard Light wrote:


Martin,

I have now had chance to read this document.  I agree that, once 
finalised, it will become a useful guide to the modelling approach 
adopted by the CRM SIG.  Would it be possible for us to have a summary 
of the conclusions that were reached when it was discussed at the 
recent SIG meeting?


At 66 pages, the document is stretching the meaning of "short" 
(despite our commitment to maintaining independence from scale - this 
is a pretty large dwarf!).


It lacks a 'road map' which tells the reader how to go about getting 
value from it, assuming they know little or nothing about this subject 
when they start reading.  (Come to that, do we have a clear idea of 
the background knowledge and intentions of the typical/target reader?  
If so, these should maybe be stated.)


The general introduction, in particular, is very dense and 
theoretical, and will probably cause most readers to give up before 
they even get to the meat of the document.  If this introduction is to 
remain, I suggest that it is included as an appendix.  I would also 
place the glossary at the end, since it interrupts the flow of the 
text.  (Where glossary terms appear in the text, they could have a 
pop-up containing their definition: in that way, they would actually 
be useful.) Instead of the General introduction, I would include a 
short outline of the main structure of the document: process model, 
engineering principles, and conceptual modelling checklist.  You could 
briefly explain that the CRM has a particular modelling approach (and 
hence the need for this document), without going into detail.


I suggest that live cross-reference links to specific sections of the 
published CRM would help to ground the text, and would give these 
modelling ideas a concrete context.  This might also be an effective 
way of giving examples in the modelling principles section: some of 
the examples provided are currently too cryptic to be helpful.


Best wishes,

Richard

On 2017-09-26 5:44 PM, martin wrote:

Dear All,

In the next CRM-SIG meeting we will discuss the following document:

http://www.cidoc-crm.org/technicalpapersPage
"Principles for 
Modelling Ontologies: A Short Reference Guide 
"


This is a first draft trying to capture basic ideas of the CRM 
development methodology in hopefully simple terms with simple rules 
to follow. This could become a sort of standard reference for all 
those that need extensions of the CRM, or in the course of mapping 
are wondering if the need extensions or not.


We hope to close a very important intellectual gap with this guide.  
It is very important that it stays simple, comprehensible and 
comprehensive for all sorts of audiences. Therefore it does not aim 
at extended scientific justifications, but we need as much feedback 
as possible.


All the 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


--
*Richard Light*


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



--

Re: [Crm-sig] CRM Methodology PLEASE READ AND COMMENT

[Richard Light]

Martin,

I have now had chance to read this document.  I agree that, once
finalised, it will become a useful guide to the modelling approach
adopted by the CRM SIG.  Would it be possible for us to have a summary
of the conclusions that were reached when it was discussed at the recent
SIG meeting?

At 66 pages, the document is stretching the meaning of "short" (despite
our commitment to maintaining independence from scale - this is a pretty
large dwarf!). 

It lacks a 'road map' which tells the reader how to go about getting
value from it, assuming they know little or nothing about this subject
when they start reading.  (Come to that, do we have a clear idea of the
background knowledge and intentions of the typical/target reader?  If
so, these should maybe be stated.)

The general introduction, in particular, is very dense and theoretical,
and will probably cause most readers to give up before they even get to
the meat of the document.  If this introduction is to remain, I suggest
that it is included as an appendix.  I would also place the glossary at
the end, since it interrupts the flow of the text.  (Where glossary
terms appear in the text, they could have a pop-up containing their
definition: in that way, they would actually be useful.)  Instead of the
General introduction, I would include a short outline of the main
structure of the document: process model, engineering principles, and
conceptual modelling checklist.  You could briefly explain that the CRM
has a particular modelling approach (and hence the need for this
document), without going into detail.

I suggest that live cross-reference links to specific sections of the
published CRM would help to ground the text, and would give these
modelling ideas a concrete context.  This might also be an effective way
of giving examples in the modelling principles section: some of the
examples provided are currently too cryptic to be helpful.

Best wishes,

Richard

On 2017-09-26 5:44 PM, martin wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> In the next CRM-SIG meeting we will discuss the following document:
>
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/technicalpapersPage
> "Principles for
> Modelling Ontologies: A Short Reference Guide
> "
>
> This is a first draft trying to capture basic ideas of the CRM
> development methodology in hopefully simple terms with simple rules to
> follow. This could become a sort of standard reference for all those
> that need extensions of the CRM, or in the course of mapping are
> wondering if the need extensions or not.
>
> We hope to close a very important intellectual gap with this guide. 
> It is very important that it stays simple, comprehensible and
> comprehensive for all sorts of audiences. Therefore it does not aim at
> extended scientific justifications, but we need as much feedback as
> possible.
>
> All the 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

-- 
*Richard Light*