Dear Francesco,
Thank you for these important considerations. I do support your broader
vision. I see several specific challenges that should better be
respected on a common path to this vision, which I'd like to explicate
and write up the next days, so that we can discuss and effectively
add
Dear all,
I also think that the decision was taken too fast and introduced at a final
moment as a fait accompli. Regardless of the ontological purity behind the
decision, there is a community of use to take into account. I indicated
also a no vote to adopting this measure in the meeting for this r
Dear Martin,
It is to me to thank you so much for taking the time to restate the
whole issue from the point of view of the methodology used to develop
the CRM, making very clear the reasons for the decision that was taken
by the SIG. I understand your arguments and they are certainly robust in
m-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote
and you may have noticed that I did not vote - I just wanted to stimulate
reflection, and I will not bore you anymore. I will reply Martin directly.
Franco
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator A
Dear Fancesco,
Thank you very much for reconsidering and withdrawing your veto. By
mistake, I send my message before finishing it.
Please let me be more analytical about the arguments.
Your arguments in the SIG meeting have been well understood and well
respected, and been evaluated against
of
a class of human subjective decisions and thus instances of attribute
assignment?
Best,
Christian-Emil
From: Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci via
Crm-sig
Sent: 23 March 2021 20:35
To: Francesco Beretta
Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-
and you may have noticed that I did not vote - I just wanted to stimulate
reflection, and I will not bore you anymore. I will reply Martin directly.
Franco
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus
Technology Director 4CH
Editor-in-Chief
Dear Martin, Christian-Emil, all,
In order not to block a development that seems to be largely consensual,
and considering that my veto apparently violates the SIG rules, I
withdraw it and simply vote NO.
If the majority thinks that the problem I have pointed to is not a
problem and that the
Dear Francesco,
Your concerns well respected, please let me explain a few things:
Firstly, this e-vote is not about the reduction of the range of P39 from
E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing.
The reduction was decided in the last CRM-SIG with good majority after
considering all pros and cons
Dear Franco,
Now I am fairly confused about with what you actually agree:
You write:
"This concept was, indeed, an Attribute Assignment - quite obviously as
it is its superclass so every measurement is an attribute assignment.
But what should be pursued, in my opinion, is the right balance be
I strongly agree with Francesco.
Some time ago I wrote a paper about reliability assessment, suggesting that it
could be considered a sort of measurement, perhaps a subclass of E16. It was
not a proposal for the CRM SIG, just considerations about the fact that at
present there is no satisfacto
ted,
recommend changes and call an e-vote for those. "
Best,
Christian-Emil
From: Crm-sig on behalf of Francesco Beretta via
Crm-sig
Sent: 23 March 2021 14:20
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote
Dear all,
as already stated in the SIG me
Dear all,
as already stated in the SIG meeting, I'm concerned with monotonicity,
and more largely with substantially changing the substance of a class
without changing its identifier: E16 remains E16 but "measuring the
nominal monetary value of a collection of coins" is now _excluded_.
So w
YES
Thanks everyone!
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 6:42 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and
> voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1
> CRM Entity
000
From: Weiss Christian SNM
To: crm-sig
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote
Message-ID: <12daf18d29374ab1a79c52d3fbe55068@snm108s.snm01.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Yes!
Christian
Von: Crm-sig Im Auftrag von Christian-Emil Smith
Ore via Crm-sig
Gesendet:
YES,
Best,
Gerald
From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios Velios via
Crm-sig
Reply to: "thana...@softicon.co.uk"
Date: Friday, 19. March 2021 at 11:49
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
Yes!
Christian
Von: Crm-sig Im Auftrag von Christian-Emil Smith
Ore via Crm-sig
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. März 2021 12:29
An: crm-sig
Betreff: Re: [Crm-sig] 511 e-vote
Yes
Chr-Emil Ore
From: Crm-sig
mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on beha
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
YES
All the best,
Øyvind
> Am 19.03.2021 um 11:37 schrieb Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
> :
>
> Dear all,
>
> At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511 and
> voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured from E1
> CRM Entity to E18 Physical
Dear all,
At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511
and voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured
from E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing. Homework was assigned to check
how scope notes and related properties are affected, recommend chang
20 matches
Mail list logo