Hi Ed, the mappings question is an interesting one. I'm looking over the
CIDOC --> LIDO mapping now. CIDOC is more thorough, so going from that
ontology to LIDO is, in a way, a metadata simplification process. Where
we've been talking about how you could add a new ontology (LIDO, e.g.) to
Ed,
As Adam suggested, Arches v4 will allow users to use the CRM ontology or
opt not to use a formal ontology at all. In practice, what this means is
that Arches v4 provides tools to ensure that graphs conform to the classes
and properties of the CRM. Users are free to use other ontologies
Thanks Adam,
I am, I'll admit, out of my comfort zone here, but is there any mileage in
considering the existing mappings to the CIDOC CRM ontology available at
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crm_mappings.html ? Does Arches (or could someone
with some Arches development expertise) set things up so
Hi George and Ed,
The short answer is that I don't believe there are currently any plans to
support these ontologies; by default Arches uses the CIDOC-CRM.
To be more specific, this depends on the version of Arches. In version 3,
enforcing any ontology is completely up to the user, so you could
Hello George,
Thanks for the post. I am sure there are others here better placed to
answer this from a technical standpoint, but to help get this question
answered, could you say a bit more about what support for these standards
would allow you and other potential Arches users to do?
All good
