YES
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 5:51 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> 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:
>
>
>
YES.
Happy (after the SIG, due to timing) test this out in practice by trying to
write up the Linked Art ontology extensions using it.
Rob
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 6:02 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> This issue is about agreeing a template based
Dear Thanasi,
I think we decided not to fill the class examples with e-numbers of
things within the noun phrase. Otherwise I agree.
I believe we need a property "Jxxx held at least for: E52 Time-Span"
"This property associates an instance of I11 Situation with the instance
of E52 Time-span
Dear all,
In anticipation of the SIG meeting, I wanted to inform you of the progress
of the work of the CIDOC CRM Translation Guidelines Working Group.
First of all, I would like to remind you that our current mandate is to
discuss issues related to translation, in particular questions relating
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:
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:
Dear all,
For the (draft) agenda of the 50th CIDOC CRM & 43rd FRBR CRM sig
meeting, click on the link below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iH2BfYG6WjyvFk68yYnK7KxpK0DtBAF-/view?usp=sharing
[1]
If you have any questions or suggestions, do not hesitate to contact us
by replying to this email.
