There’s a repetition in the examples. Probably only the Venus de Milo deserves
it :)
F.
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS
Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
Piazza Ciardi 25
Dear All,
I believe the examples of E51 Contact Point, now deprecated, should go
to E42 Identifier.
--
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for
Dear All,
With the deletion of many subclasses of E41 Appellation here my
suggestion for adjustment:
*NEW:*
E41 Appellation
Subclass of:E90 <#_E90_Symbolic_Object> Symbolic Object
Superclass of: E35 <#_E35_Title> Title
E42 <#_E42_Object_Identifier>Identifier
Scope note:This class
Having said that, maybe P126 should go a step up to E7 Activity, as I
think that the use of a material during an activity does not always
result in modification. Not more that the use of an object anyway.
Thanasis
Forwarded Message
List-Post: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Date: Fri,
Yep, this looks right. Sorry I missed it. And it was right next door.
T.
On 11/10/2019 20:49, Martin Doerr wrote:
Oops,
The case described by Thanassis should be documented with P126. Isn't it??
P126 employed (was employed in)
Domain: E11 <#_E11_Modification> Modification
Range: E57
