[Crm-sig] Clarification needed for CRMtex: relation between TX12 Grapheme Sequence and E33 Linguistic Object/E34 Inscription

Dear all, I am preparing a CRM++ tutorial/workshop including CRMtex for philologists including runologists. This gives me deeper insights in CRMtex. In general it seems adequate and it seems to be possible to encode the information one finds in a scientific series about runic inscriptions in

Re: [Crm-sig] New ISSUE: Quantifiers of P140,P141,P177

Dear Martin, I have read this issue a little late. I have no problem with your argumentation. There may be a side effect. P35: Quantification: many to many, necessary (1,n:0,n) For all x,y we have P37(x,y) ⇒ P141(x,y) Since the quantification of P35 is (1,n:0,n), then it may exist

[Crm-sig] CIDIOC report to ICOM, additional crm-sig activities in 2023 ?

Dear all, At the CIDOC AGM in Mexico City, I presented a short annual report for CRM-SIG. The limit was set to 3 slides. The Chair of CIDOC, Trilce Navarrete Hernandez, asked me if there are additional activities that could be reported. She has in mind: 3 Other meeting, conference, workshop,

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue, missing part of type

Dear all, As Øyvind point out, the part removal class is a subclass of activity and thus all instances represents "actions intentionally carried out by instances of E39 Actor ". An accident, landslide, earthquake etc is an instence of E5 Event but not of A7 Activity. The negative statement

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: Completing the list of shortcuts in CRMbase

Not necessarily new issues for each extension. But as an afterthought, this will be the best and keep the process(es) tidy.. Also, the the discussion about possible new shortcuts, strong etc. are mostly interesting for the geeks among us (including me). For the rest, this issue may be

[Crm-sig] Urgent: status of CRMinf, CRMsci, CRMtex, CRMdig, CRMba, CRMsoc

Dear all, I am compiling the crm sig report for 2023 to be presented at the CIDOC AGM. In the 2022 report the status of the models where described as shown below. I need updated information by Monday evening. For the models I don't get any formation about, I will just put under the heading

Re: [Crm-sig] EXTENDED DEADLINE: E-VOTE: LRMoo R10 is member of (has member)

-Emil From: Pat Riva Sent: 02 August 2023 07:19 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig; Christian-Emil Smith Ore Subject: Re: EXTENDED DEADLINE: E-VOTE: LRMoo R10 is member of (has member) We were following the rule that a property declared in an extension must

Re: [Crm-sig] EXTENDED DEADLINE: E-VOTE: LRMoo R10 is member of (has member)

Question about the direction: R10 is member of (has member): Domain: F1 Work Range: E28 Conceptual Object In all the examples the inverse is used. What is the motivation for the direction in the declaration? Best, Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

Hi all, The E13 Attribute assignment construct does not create any formal connection between an instance of E13 and the instance of the property it documents. We have the property P177 assigned property of type (is type of property assigned): E55 Type. It is no formal connection between

[Crm-sig] HW Issue 621 Update synchronization between CRMarchaeo and CRMbase and Update introduction to CRMarchaeo

Dear all, A stable version of CRMarchaeo has been on the stocks for several years. There are two remaining issues before the model can be launched: Issue 621 Update synchronization between CRMarchaeo and CRMbase:

Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group

are good for indexing data and interlink the data, but textual descriptions must be obligatory. Best, Christian-Emil From: Franco Niccolucci Sent: 10 March 2023 10:07 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Cc: crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28

Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group

timespan of the creation is of course open-ended as these are "living" >>> traditions. >>> HTH >>> SdS >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:57 PM George Bruseker >>> wrote: >>> I'd use the term 'forms of life' instead of 'intangible h

Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group

It is a good question. Also note that documentation of intangible cultural heritage is in most cases ttangible. According to UNESCO intangible cultural heritage is defined as Article 2 – Definitions For the purposes of this Convention, 1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices,

Re: [Crm-sig] New CRMsci e-vote: label for S23

Yes A comment : In seafare a ship's position at a given time was often calculated on the basis of the last observation of the latitude and longitude by the chronometer and sextant and then the direction and speed (velocity vector) during the elapsed time since the observation, see some of

Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for CRMsci 2.0

I also vote YES. The small corrections (like Martin's, my typo, Wolfgang's comments) are at an text editorial level and is left to the editors. If not we will never finish our work. Best, Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of Martin Doerr via Crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for CRMsci 2.0

Dear all, I am the one responsible for the Oseberg example. I made a typeo, the planks where found in 1903 and of course not in 1908. Thank you, Wolfgang! I choose the Wikipedia as source. All texts with the information about how the tenant (not the owner) at the farm Nedre Oseberg, found the

[Crm-sig] issue 623, archaeological examples for S20 and S22

S20 Rigid Physical Feature Example: The top surface of the clay floor A11 (Heterogeneous, yellow to grey silty clay; clear, wavy lower boundary) (illu p. 1601, Croix et al, 2019) S22 Segment of Matter Example: the clay floor A11 (Heterogeneous, yellow to grey silty clay; clear, wavy lower

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 623, FOL for O15

t; Am 08.12.2022 um 15:33 schrieb Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig >> : >> >> >> ISSUE 623, FOL for O15 >> >> I was asked to produce FOL for the sentence 'This property is equivalent to >> P156 occupies (is occupied by) with domain E18 Physical Thing and ra

[Crm-sig] ISSUE 623, FOL for O15

ISSUE 623, FOL for O15 I was asked to produce FOL for the sentence 'This property is equivalent to P156 occupies (is occupied by) with domain E18 Physical Thing and range E53 Place.' (marked in green). The equivalence is that O15 implies P156 when restricted to E18. The other way round is

[Crm-sig] Issue 584: AP32 discarded into -scope note refinement

Dear all. A new scopenote can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pOttKwIeOTts6QmAcg5p6DXtmTXf25W- The original decision was an e-vote. It seems to be better to spend a few minutes on the new scopenote. Best, Christian-Emil

[Crm-sig] Homework for 621 update-synchronization-btw-crmarchaeo-and-crmbase

Dear all, Some homework concerning superproperties of 1. AP4 produced surface (was surface produced by): A10 Excavation Interface 2. AP5 removed part or all of (was partially or totally removed by): A8 Stratigraphic Unit 3. AP10 destroyed (was destroyed by): S22 Segment of Matter

[Crm-sig] issue 607 hw

Dear all, I have written a short document about the FOL in the axioms. Wolfgang has sent a few emails to the list regarding the issue. You will find links and my HW in

Re: [Crm-sig] issue 534Shortcuts, .1-properties and the long paths

he unknown z is the same as one possibly in a full path of the same activity. Nothing tells us why there should not be more than one "w" for the same z. Is that what you mean? I'd support creating such a P125.1. Best, Martin On 11/30/2022 3:57 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-

Re: [Crm-sig] issue 534Shortcuts, .1-properties and the long paths

. Funny example is John James Audubon: He reportedly shot a bird in 1812 in Pennsylvania, named it "Regulus cuvieri", painted it probably with an error in "Birds of America", so that this species was never seen again. Best, Martin On 11/30/2022 1:35 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Or

[Crm-sig] Issue 613 Inverse shortcuts

Dear all, In an email exchange we have discussed the term 'weak inverse shortcut' introduced in Meghini & Doerr. The conclusion is that the term is problematic and Martin redefined it as ' an instance of the shortcut property implies an instance of each of the properties and classes in the

[Crm-sig] issue 534Shortcuts, .1-properties and the long paths

Dear all, My HW can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kd-zCO8e00WoKWb-9VAm96ECDEA2O_1iFI6kpgcuCnE Best, Christian-Emil ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Issue 617: Is P7(x,y) ∧ P89(y,z) ⇒ P7(x,z) still regarded as true?

Dear all, The question is: If an instance x of E4 Period took place at an instance y of E53 place, can we conclude that x took place at all places containing y? This was explicitly stated in CRMbase before the September meeting. The decission in Rome was to reformulate this as Therefore,

[Crm-sig] Issue 616: shortcuts in P50 has current keeper, P52 has current owner, P55 has current location

Dear all, Wolfgang points to the fact that the 'current' properties is not defined in a consistent way, which of course they should have been. The textual scope notes says 'if and only if' which should be expressed as bidirectional implication, ⇔ (equivalence). Below I quite from an email

Re: [Crm-sig] Digging for a unknown issue, help needed

nstantiation with E4, I think. It's a bit like the chalk on the blackboard, getting smaller and smaller. End of existence of the unit may be obvious or border line. Opinions? Best, Martin On 11/26/2022 12:35 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote: A problem is that A1 Excavation Pro

Re: [Crm-sig] Digging for a unknown issue, help needed

, it is a Logical OR of modification and destruction. Opinions? Best, Martin On 11/25/2022 2:03 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote: Dear all, In the work with the cleanup of the definition document for CRMarcheo, I found a comment (written by myself) next to AP5 removed part

[Crm-sig] Digging for a unknown issue, help needed

Dear all, In the work with the cleanup of the definition document for CRMarcheo, I found a comment (written by myself) next to AP5 removed part or all of (was partially or totally removed by) Domain:

[Crm-sig] issue 613 Re: Are there "weak inverse" shortcuts?

Dear all, Some starting points: weak inverse is a somewhat opaque term. The defintion in Meghini & Doerr is not clear: "inverse weak shortcuts, that is weak shortcuts on the inverse properties, and therefore in them an instance of the shortcut property implies an instance of each of the

Re: [Crm-sig] Is P7(x,y) ∧ P89(y,z) ⇒ P7(x,z) still regarded as true?

Since my HW is mentioned. I tried to explain the change, P7(x,y) ∧ P89(y,z) ⇒ P7(x,z), seen form the point of view of practical applications. Martin argue correctly from a principle point of view. Time reasoning is similar, on the the two dimensional time line. A historian or an

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: shortcuts in P50 has current keeper, P52 has current owner, P55 has current location

the scopenote text. In those worlds where there is a move w taking x away from y and w is after z (so the antecedent is false), P55(x,y) (the consequent) is false as well but the axiom still holds. Carlo Il 19/10/22 13:23, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig ha scritto: In the scope notes

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: shortcuts in P50 has current keeper, P52 has current owner, P55 has current location

ot; since time X exceeds the scope > of logic. > Isn't it? > > I fear the "if and only if" statements are wrong anyway. Better you raise an > issue. I fear we have not understood circumstances that can lead to a custody > or loosing etc., including death, heirs etc. > >

Re: [Crm-sig] Deducing the current custody / ownership / location

,y)˄ P182(z,w)]] That was what I thought. Best, Christian-Emil From: Wolfgang Schmidle Sent: 18 October 2022 17:47 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Deducing the current custody / ownership / location Dear Christian-Emil

Re: [Crm-sig] Deducing the current custody / ownership / location

Dear Wolfgang, It is clear (at least to me) that the FOLs in the 'current' properties are too weak. A complicating factor is that the FOL describes what we explicitly know, that is, the status in the knowledge system. In a closed world system, all shortcuts will imply at least one instance of

[Crm-sig] Summing up without FOL: 534-representing-.1-properties-of-full-paths-in-shortcut-properties

Dear all, My HW document contains a full overview over all shortcuts and a discussion based on FOL, see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zQwy8mp4BrwE3VeqJuc7j9z82CzYqZb5ZmIdrtVPM1U/ In this email I will explain the problems without any formal logic. In the terminology part of CIDOC CRM

[Crm-sig] call for e-vote ISSUE 597 define irreflexive and asymmetric

Dear all, Yesterday we decided that the issue '597 define irreflexive and asymmetric ' should be reduced to an e-vote. The changes is to be inserted in the terminology subchapter of the CIDOC CRM document. In the text below I have incorporated Franco's concern about proper subsets. The

Re: [Crm-sig] issue 597: define irreflexivity and asymmetry

om: Franco Niccolucci Sent: 07 September 2022 19:49 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Cc: crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] issue 597: define irreflexivity and asymmetry Dear Christian-Emile two quick comments. 1) In the discursive parts, probably you swapped the examples: 1) A relation R is

[Crm-sig] ISSUE 534-representing-.1-properties-of-full-paths-in-shortcut-properties

Dear all, Please, find my HW attached and in the issue folder https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LOJj_CcmUt5x0aOx1uv5qPDXX5Rzect9 Best, Christian-Emil HW ISSUE 534-representing-.1-properties-of-full-paths-in-shortcut-properties.docx Description: HW ISSUE

[Crm-sig] issue 597: define irreflexivity and asymmetry

Dear all, Please find my hw below and in the attachment. Best, Christian-Emil The issue is about how to define asymmetric and irreflexive. Background Usually the prefix 'non-' in a compound negates the main part. So 'non-symmetric' should have the same meaning as 'not symmetric'. From Latin

[Crm-sig] Issue 606 adjust scope notes of P7 & P161

Issue 606 adjust scope notes of P7 & P161 Reference space A place is always defined in a reference space, that is, at a position relative to a physical thing (E18). So P89(y,z) implies that there exist a u, E18(u), and P157(y,u) and P157(z,u). We propose to add this to the definition of P157.

[Crm-sig] Editorial error: P161 has spatial projection cannot be a subproperty of P7 took place at

Dear all, In the current versions v 7.1... and 7.2... 'P161 has spatial projection' is declared to be a subproperty of P7 took place at: E92 Spacetime Volume. P161 has spatial projection (is spatial projection of): E53 isa E4 Period. P7 took place at (witnessed) E53 Place This is

Re: [Crm-sig] .1 properties on sub properties of properties with .1

And, as far as I can see, is a good thing (maybe not in the RDF world, though) and as it should be. Chr-E From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig Sent: 12 August 2022 13:37 To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] .1 properties on

[Crm-sig] CRM-SIG meeting in December. In Luxembourg and not in Liege

Dear all, Muriel van Ruymbeke now holds a position at the Luxembourg Centre for Contemporary and Digital History (C²DH) of the University of Luxembourg. The December meeting will be organized by C²DH in Luxembourg. The dates will be the same as previously

[Crm-sig] ISSUE 584: AP29 discarded into -scope note refinement pertaining the quantification of AP 29 (32),

Dear all, This issue is about the quantification of the new property (accepted in the 52nd meeting). First of all, we forgot about the three new properties AP 29-31. So the number of AP29 must be changed to AP32. Achille, Gerald and I have discussed the quantification and came to the

Re: [Crm-sig] Call for e-vote: LRMoo, F56 Externalization Event

Yes Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of Pat Riva via Crm-sig Sent: 28 April 2022 06:29 To: CRM-SIG Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Call for e-vote: LRMoo, F56 Externalization Event For this e-vote that was supposed to close on April 27, I only have 4 votes

[Crm-sig] Most for entertainment: Example of A7 Embedding, BBC documentary -San Galgano’s sword

A7 Embedding San Galgano’s sword embedded at the Hermitage of Monte Siepi, [He retired around 1170 to live as a hermit. as a symbol of peace he embedded his sword in a stone, which can still be seen today] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galgano_Guidotti) BBC has a documentary about the sword:

Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for scope note part of issue 294 (CRMarchaeo)

Dear all, The result of this e-vote is 8 yes 0 no 0 veto Best, Christian-Emil From: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Sent: 21 March 2022 12:24 To: crm-sig Subject: E-vote for scope note part of issue 294 (CRMarchaeo) Dear all, As the issue number indicates

Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote: LRMoo F28 Expression Creation

yes Chr-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of Pat Riva via Crm-sig Sent: 28 March 2022 05:22 To: CRM-SIG Subject: [Crm-sig] E-vote: LRMoo F28 Expression Creation Hello all, Continuing the series of e-votes to complete outstanding homework. Following the

[Crm-sig] E-vote for scope note part of issue 294 (CRMarchaeo)

Dear all, As the issue number indicates issue 294 has been with for a while. In the 49th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 42nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig accepted MD's proposal to change the quantification of appears in, restricted to, typical for

Re: [Crm-sig] Call for e-vote issue 517

is "not transitive". Then I vote YES. Best, Martin On 3/3/2022 9:13 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote: Dear all, As agreed in the 52nd meeting the background material and the suggested (small) changes were made available for discussion and comments on the sig-list. The dead line

[Crm-sig] Call for e-vote issue 517

no, and those who want the issue discussed at the next sig meeting can vote 'veto' Kind regards, Christian-Emil From: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Sent: 14 February 2022 09:47 To: crm-sig Subject: issue 517 comments, discussion until end of February Dear all

[Crm-sig] Call for e-vote to close Issue 409: CRMarcheo generalization of the properties AP12 confines and AP11 has physical relation

Dear all, The issue 409 is starting to get old. The last decision was from June 2019 and is as follows "In the 44th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 37th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting,given the complexity of the topological relations linking stratigraphic units

[Crm-sig] issue 517 comments, discussion until end of February

Dear all, The issue 517 with the somewhat misleading title "Does the axiom of non-reflexivity follow from the definition of transitivity?" boils down to checking transitivity, symmetry and reflexivity of the 32 properties in CRMbase with identical domain and range. In the meeting last week

[Crm-sig] 484: 7.0 preparation –missing examples

Dear all, I checked the 7.1.1 document (official version) and the 7.2 document. In 7.1.1 the properties without an example are P174, P182, P184 and P184 In 7.1.1 the properties without an example are P174, P184 and P184. As a follow up on the decision to make a version 7.1.2 for ISO, we must

[Crm-sig] ISSUE ID-478-quantification-of-ap2-discarded-into-was-discarded-by

478 (https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-478-quantification-of-ap2-discarded-into-was-discarded-by ) "In the 49th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 42nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig decided in favor of the proposal to delete O2 removed [D: S1 Matter

[Crm-sig] HW 447 a7-embedding-as-a-physical-feature-like-entity

447 ( https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-447-a7-embedding-as-a-physical-feature-like-entity ) In the 49th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 42nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig decided that A7 Embedding will be declared a subclass of S20 Rigid Physical

[Crm-sig] Some inspiration Re: HW needed examples for P176, P184, P185 are still missing need examples from relative chronology

). From: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Sent: 25 January 2022 12:56 To: crm-sig Subject: HW needed examples for P176, P184, P185 are still missing need examples from relative chronology Dear all, The following properties P174 starts before the end of, P184 ends before or with the end

[Crm-sig] HW needed examples for P176, P184, P185 are still missing need examples from relative chronology

Dear all, The following properties P174 starts before the end of, P184 ends before or with the end of, P185 ends before the end of have no examples. We need a community effort to find good example by Monday 31st. Best, Christian-Emil ___

Re: [Crm-sig] PLEASE VOTE: New Member.

Yes From: Crm-sig on behalf of Martin Doerr via Crm-sig Sent: 27 November 2021 21:21 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] PLEASE VOTE: New Member. Dear All, It is a great pleasure and honor for us to announce that the Palace Museum in Beijing applies for CRM-SIG

Re: [Crm-sig] Linked Places mapping

Still the information in a gazetteers and in old land (mediaeval, early modern) registries can be organized compliant with CRM. I assume that is what is meant. This, in my opinion, an interesting task and could help a lot. Best, Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] evote: Issue 535 example of Pxxx represents instance of type

YES Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of E. Tsoulouha via Crm-sig Sent: 02 July 2021 13:29 To: Crm Sig Subject: [Crm-sig] evote: Issue 535 example of Pxxx represents instance of type Dear all, According to the decision for issue 535 in the 50th CIDOC

Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for issue 384 (template for family models)

??YES Christian-Emil Am 18.06.2021 um 11:56 schrieb Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>>: 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:

Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for issue 493 (example templates)

?Yes From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig Sent: 18 June 2021 11:47 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] E-vote for issue 493 (example templates) Dear all, This issue is about agreeing a rationale and a template based on which CRMbase and CRM

[Crm-sig] an example for CRM application

Dear all The following story about the missing index finger of Constantine could be a good CRM example. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/29/giant-statue-roman-emperor-constantine-reunited-with-long-lost-finger? Best, Christian-Emil ___

Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo -embedding

Sent: 26 March 2021 11:30 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Cc: crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo -embedding Dear Christian-Emil, I understand the practical need of this operation, but I also fear that this may cause further conceptual inconsistencies since, I imagine, in no way an embedding

[Crm-sig] CRMarcheo -embedding

Dear all, In issue 447 the SIG has decided to make A7 Embedding a subclass of S20. Ok. In many excavations archaeologists record structures without specifying layer (A2) versus surface (A3). Therefore such documented things can only be modelled as instances of the A8, the superclass of A2

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Dear Francesco, You did not violate any rule. My point was simply that the reduction has already been accepted. The question was about an adjustment of the scope notes so that they were in harmony with the reduced range. I had some concern about the reduction but ended with the conclusion that

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

Hm, Your veto has the consequence that the issue has to be postponed to the next physical(that is electronical) meeting. This leaves us in an interesting situation. ​"At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and voted to accept the reduction of the range of

Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote

​Yes Chr-Emil Ore From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig Sent: 19 March 2021 11:37 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote Dear all, At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and voted to accept the

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature

From: Achille Felicetti Sent: 09 March 2021 12:33 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore; Martin Doerr Cc: crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature Dear Christian-Emil, Martin, I cannot help but continue to think that an embedding is something more

[Crm-sig] recording of the 49th meeting for checking the minutes

Dear all, The 49th meeting zoom meeting will be recorded for the purpose of taking minutes. The recordings will be deleted as soon as the minutes are completed and checked against the recordings. Best, Christian-Emil Ore deputy chair, CRM-SIG ___

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature

I agree, and thnak you for reminding me of the existence of P156 occupies​. Best, Christian-Emil From: Martin Doerr Sent: 05 March 2021 14:02 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore; crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature Dear

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature

Dear all, In the I October SIG Meeting, the following arguments were made: "Gerald Hiebel would prefer A7 Embedding as a S20. One point in the argumentation may be, that the surrounding matter of an Embedding has a specific condition is often used to determine parameters like the time of

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 474, scope note of AP11

​Hi The suggested sentence " The described relationship may be between two adjacent instances of A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit sharing a common interface (instance of A3 Stratigraphic Interface), between an instance of A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit and one of its adjacent interfaces, such as

Re: [Crm-sig] quantification of .1 properties

l, faceted classification is the only way to avoid combinatorial explosions in the thesauri. The .1 properties should be equivalent to free subproperty declarations. Any technical reason for such a constraint? best, Martin On 11/18/2020 11:52 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: ?Sounds right.

Re: [Crm-sig] quantification of .1 properties

?Sounds right. We should make a note somewhere in the introduction. Christian-Emil From: Stephen Stead Sent: 18 November 2020 09:50 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore; Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: RE: [Crm-sig] quantification of .1 properties Hi Christian-Emil I

[Crm-sig] quantification of .1 properties

Dear all, What is the quantification of .1 properties? For example for P3 has Note it can be useful to use more than one instanc eof the P3.1 has type: E55 Type? specifying. Best, Christian-Emil ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr

Re: [Crm-sig] E-Vote ( Issue 508 ): First Order Logic Representation of p170

?Yes Best, Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of George Bruseker Sent: 06 October 2020 14:04 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] E-Vote ( Issue 508 ): First Order Logic Representation of p170 Dear all, In the last SIG, the issue of the accuracy of the FOL

Re: [Crm-sig] E-Vote: Change of Scope Note E10 Transfer of Custody (Issue 475)

​Yes, Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of George Bruseker Sent: 06 October 2020 07:45 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] E-Vote: Change of Scope Note E10 Transfer of Custody (Issue 475) Dear all, In the last CRM SIG (47) we discussed issue

[Crm-sig] format for storing CRM expressed data

of archaeological data in Norway, see The ADED project - a Norwegian infrastructure for excavation data, Christian-Emil Smith Ore, Espen Uleberg in https://ariadne-infrastructure.eu/the-ariadne-impact/ (a) The common database is implemented by a Norwegian commercial company (Geodata) is not in focus here

[Crm-sig] HW for issue 386 Functional identity of E24 Physical Man Made Thing

Dear all, Please, find my HW for the issue attached. Best, Christian-Emil? HW for ISSUE 386.docx Description: HW for ISSUE 386.docx ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] HW of ISSUE 428

Dear all Please find my homework for Issue 428 (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-428-the-scope-notes-of-e59-primitive-value-and-e61-time-primitive) attached. Best, Christian-Emil? HW for ISSUE 428.docx Description: HW for ISSUE 428.docx ___

[Crm-sig] Fw: Invitation from UNESCO Chair on Digital Cultural Heritage: Special Webinar on the 9th of May 2020, 14:00-16:00 CET

From: Gunnar Liestøl Sent: 07 May 2020 13:29 To: digitalhumani...@hf.uio.no Subject: Invitation from UNESCO Chair on Digital Cultural Heritage: Special Webinar on the 9th of May 2020, 14:00-16:00 CET May be relevant to many on this list! Gunnar Dear

[Crm-sig] Issue ID-459-modelling-principles-introduction-text-for-crm-version-7.0

Dear all, As a part of my homework I should comment on Martin's three alternatives for the first paragraph of the Introduction text see http://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-459-modelling-principles-introduction-text-for-crm-version-7.0 Martin's alternatives can be found at

Re: [Crm-sig] [CRMarchaeo] E-vote for the label of A1 Excavation Process Unit

?YES From: Crm-sig on behalf of Bekiari Chryssoula Sent: 26 April 2020 19:52 To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: [Crm-sig] [CRMarchaeo] E-vote for the label of A1 Excavation Process Unit Dear All, Following the decisions of the last crm-sig (46th CIDOC CRM),

[Crm-sig] New ISSUE editorial check of changes in CRMarcheo

Dear all, A small task force, Achille Felicetti, Gerald Hiebel and I, has suggested changes to the CRMarcho document. The new version number is 1.5.0. The SIG should go through the document and check the changes (as was done for the CRMbase in Heraklion, October). They are all marked with

Re: [Crm-sig] workshop tutorials at CIDOC 2020: September 19-25, 2020?

?Hi Rob It a very good idea to coordinate the workshops. Do you plan to have the workshop and the panel Saturday/Sunday before the conference? Best, Christian-Emil From: Robert Sanderson Sent: 13 February 2020 18:18 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore; crm-sig Cc

[Crm-sig] workshop tutorials at CIDOC 2020: September 19-25, 2020?

Dear all, The Board of CIDOC has its winter meeting 13-16 February. I participate as the CRM-SIG representative. One issue will bewg meetings and workshops tutorials. Does anybody plan or would like to organize a CRM workshop/tutorial? The dates and place: CIDOC 2020: September 19-25, 2020

[Crm-sig] Relative position under and over - adjusted text

Dear all,? In the Berlin November meeting 2018, I suggested that one should generalize 'AP11 has physical relation' from CRMarcheo to CRMsci so that it could be used for all layered structures but also for cuts done in archaeological excavations. It became clear during the discussion that

[Crm-sig] relative position under and over

Dear all, 2. Spatial relations? I agree that "E53 Place represents a purely geometric notion of spacea nd that above/below relationships cannot be defined between Dear all, In the Berlin November meeting 2018, I suggested that one should generalize 'AP11 has physical relation' from CRMarcheo

Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for the scope note of P2 has type (is type of)

yes Christian-Emil On 31/01/2020 12:46, Bekiari Xrysoula wrote: > Dear All, > > Following the decisions of the last sig, we invite you to vote if you > accept the updated scope note of P2 has type . The old and the new > scope notes follow: > >

[Crm-sig] two archaeological questions

Dear all, This is question about how to model excavation/documentation practice. It may be considered good or bad but it is practice. Assume one dig in mechanical layers with a squares, 1 x 1 meter and 5 cm thick (which is a frequent way to excavate neolithic sites in the western part of

Re: [Crm-sig] Membership PLEASE VOTE

Yes Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of Martin Doerr Sent: 30 January 2020 18:27 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] Membership PLEASE VOTE Dear All, We are glad to announce that Swiss Art Research Infrastructure (SARI) would like to become member of

Re: [Crm-sig] and now something completely different - a modelling question

, Christian-Emil From: Carlo Meghini at ISTI CNR Sent: 20 January 2020 13:29 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Cc: crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] and now something completely different - a modelling question The Swiss Confederation (sc) is an E4 Period linked to its

Re: [Crm-sig] and now something completely different - a modelling question

Thank you, forgot about STVs. Best, Christian-Emil From: Carlo Meghini at ISTI CNR Sent: 20 January 2020 13:29 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Cc: crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] and now something completely different - a modelling question The Swiss

[Crm-sig] and now something completely different - a modelling question

Dear all As an example of an instance of E24 Group one find "The President of the Swiss Confederation" which is ok. How should one link this instance to the Swiss Confederation? which is modelled as a instance of E4 Period? Best Christian-Emil ___

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

in this statement. All other rules A-D provided by Robert appear to be correct. Best, Martin On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: E37 Mark E33 Linguistic Object | / E34 Inscription ​​E) No Marks which are not also

  1   2   3   >