others).
>
> Best,
> Pavlos
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 4:55 PM Ethan Gruber wrote:
>
>> I agree with Rob.
>>
>> In the case of Part D, I suggest the HTTP 303 See Other for a
>> replacement/renaming. I agree there shouldn't be a 404 for a deprecation,
&g
I agree with Rob.
In the case of Part D, I suggest the HTTP 303 See Other for a
replacement/renaming. I agree there shouldn't be a 404 for a deprecation,
but there should be a 3xx code for redirecting to the Migration
Instructions. 301? Not sure.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Robert Sanderson
Thank you for the clarification. I think this more closely aligns with how
monograms, symbols, etc. are cataloged (as idealized representations).
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 2:45 PM Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I revise the intent, following Robert's concerns that it may be
> interpreted as
:46, Ethan Gruber wrote:
>
> I really disagree with alternative URL patterns and using them in RDF.
> That URL pattern is *not* the concept,
>
> The URL has well-defined semantics (e.g.) "this is Richard Light's CRM
> rendition of the Geonames place Burgess Hill". It's a de
I really disagree with alternative URL patterns and using them in RDF. That
URL pattern is *not* the concept, and whomever generates these URLs is
responsible for maintaining them permanently. A web service like this works
in theory, but I would say that the majority of the LOD-oriented vocabulary
January 2020 13:59
> *To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
>
>
>
> I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should not be
> regarded Linguistic Objects. They do not have a particular language,
> translation etc. No need to make t
I disagree with changing scope note of Mark (removing indication of
authority, purpose, etc.) because this fundamentally changes the semantic
meaning of Mark, rendering my entire use case obsolete.
The only real point of contention in my mind is whether Inscription is a
subclass of Mark. It can
I agree with your assertion of D: that not all inscriptions are marks.
I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a letter or combination of
letters. Have you ever noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a
mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC" characters on a Roman coin
Object, which is in the class hierarchy for all of
> the above options.
>
> The relevant first sentence for P190:
>
> This property associates an instance of E90 Symbolic Object with a
> complete, identifying representation of its content in the form of an
> instance of E62 Strin
ic_Object ; crm:P106_is_composed_of ?character .
>
> ?character a E33_Linguistic_Object ; crm:P190_has_symbolic_content “☧” .
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> That would avoid the punning that the chi-rho is both an E33 and a literal
> at the same time.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
crm:P106_is_composed_of+ "Ρ" #Greek rho
So I just want to confirm that a single Unicode character itself is an E73
Information Object, even if this is an unusual implementation.
?monogram crm:P165i_is_incorporated_in "☧"
Ethan
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:15 AM Ethan Gruber wrote:
>
Hi George,
I think this makes a lot of sense. I can use the D1 Digital Object, and
this is pretty useful for us as I would like to be able to associate the
SVG with the person who created it or other processes of production
(derived from a font file, e.g.). I've forwarded to the Nomisma list and
Hi all,
I have a large number (thousands) of monograms that appear on Greek
coinage. There is an SVG file that represents an idealized form of the
monogram. The Nomisma ontology has a nmo:Monogram class, and I am
attempting to link Nomisma more directly as subclasses or subproperties to
CIDOC-CRM
13 matches
Mail list logo
