Dear Robert,
This are good points. I believe such overview information should appear
on the CRM site, however, someone needs to maintain and update.
WRT technical implementation, per default CRM-SIG provides RDFS. OWL is
more powerful, but implementers must be careful not to impose
constraints that come in conflict with more rare exceptions and the need
to accommodate mutually contradictory alternatives of historical facts.
The idea is further that even Relation databases can implement an
effective management of CRM instances, if data entry control software
checks consistent use of entity types and relation types, which
represent classes and properties. In the past, we have seen such
implementations.
Some implementations may implement only small parts of the CRM.
LIDO is regarded to be an XML implementation with a loss-free mapping to
the CRM in RDFS or OWL, and as such compatible, and promoted by CIDOC. I
think there are enough systems around of this kind. Of course, they
cannot be queried by superproperties, possibly some properties and
classes are parametrized as types, which creates the needs again to
control consistency between both.
We at FORTH have implemented such systems in XML.
About who uses what, and what is the S/W, I think we need a questionnaire.
About relevant standards, I think we need a questionnaire.
Both I think is part of this issue. Relevance needs to be defined:
content size? subject coverage? expressive power?. Also, archives and
libraries keep cultural materials and use their standards in quite
different ways.
In 2009, I wrote a chapter for the Ontology Handbook
https://dblp.org/db/series/ihis/hoo2009.html
Best,
Martin
On 10/15/2021 4:50 PM, Nasarek, Robert via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
My name is Robert Nasarek and as an employee of the Germanisches
Nationalmuseum I am part of the consortium NFDI4Culture inside the
German National Research Data Infrastructure. Out of this context, a
few questions or needs arose that may be answered by the SIG community:
1) CIDOC CRM needs a technical implementation (like the Erlangen-CRM
<http://erlangen-crm.org/> in OWL) for computer aided processing, do
you use other implementations (XML etc.)?
2) There is a need for a comparative overview of all relevant
(de-facto) standards in the cultural sector with advantages and
disadvantages, peculiarities, weaknesses, and strengths. Which
standards are relevant and why?
3) Also, an overview of standards-based software would be useful
(WissKI, Omeka S, ResearchSpace, WikiMedia...), also with advantages
and disadvantages etc. Which software do you use and why?
Maybe some of you can help me answer these questions and feel like
having a short meeting to discuss these things?
Just drop me a line and depending on the response, I'll organize a
suitable format (the results will be shared). I would be very pleased!
With kind regards
Robert Nasarek
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
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
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr
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
