Hi
My impression is that many museums (to be more accurate: their
management and curators) are not willing to share the catalogue
information in their content management system. This may be due to old
tradition from the time when curators and philologists kept their data
locked in their desk o
Hi all
I think this is a slightly grey area
The idea of a non-open URI is essentially nonsensical (i.e. it's
impossible to prevent the citation of it, whether digitally or
otherwise). On the other hand its meaning should be entirely derived
from the things which are said about it - the URI per se
Of course the URI must be open to everybody.
But when the term LOD is used in the document it does refer more
generally to a descriptive dataset about the material object (to support
identification), or am I mistaken?
Regine
Am 30.05.2011 23:06, schrieb Christian-Emil Ore:
I understand Regin
I understand Regine's concern. However, there is a pedagogical job to do
for CIDOC. The idea, as Max writes, is that the URI is open to everybody
eg to be used in Object-ID connections.
Chr-Emil
On 30.05.2011 22:48, Regine Stein wrote:
Martin,
I can't see a clear notion on "what the term is
Hi *,
I could understand it if the term and the URIs are being kept apart. It could
help the discussion in steering free from questions like how non-contributions
can be made up as contributions.
Reinhard
Am 30.05.2011 um 22:48 schrieb Regine Stein:
> Martin,
>
> I can't see a clear notion
Martin,
I can't see a clear notion on "what the term is now", also from other's
comments.
Why ignoring serious sensibilities in the museum community - we are
aiming at their contribution, aren't we?
Regine
Am 30.05.2011 21:07, schrieb martin:
Dear Max, Regine, yes, I support the latter sta
Dear Max, Regine, yes, I support the latter statement. The term is Linked Open
Data
now, and the Recommendation itself is only about the URIs for the material
object, not about what
and how much content should be revealed, not even about linking. Therefore I
prefer to
stay with the term as is.
Hi Max and all,
To my understanding the recommendation simply does not make any
assumption about openness, but deals with identification in the Linked
Data field.
It btw even notes explicitly (6.) "that such a service is not mandatory
for the URI to be valid". Having URIs for museum objects av
Hi *,
by the way - in terms of non-openness and just from curiosity: what about
datasets/objects in commcercial databases?
RF
--
--
Prof. Dr. Reinhard Foertsch
Universitaet zu Koeln
CoDArchLab
am
Archaeologischen Institut
Albertus Magnus Platz
D - 50923 Koeln
Fon: 0049/221/470-2946
Fax: 0049/
Hi Regine and all,
In principle, I think, we can all imagine Linked Data that is non-open -
and in house museum inventory databases might be so very likely. But the
whole point about publishing identifier URIs for museum objects is that
they are available for everybody to cite. So indeed in ou
Dear Martin, dear all,
Apologies for the very late comment (however just in time for the
deadline May 30th ;-))
I have one simple recommendation: Please replace "Linked Open Data" by
"Linked Data" throughout the whole documents (and URL).
First because Linked Data is the original term as it
Dear all,
I think it is a long way to convince the curators to use CRM although
most see the point when it is explained. However, this understanding
tends to be forgotten. In Norway, in the university museums the
maintenance of our original crm compliant museum systems is taken over
by a user
Dear Martin,
I have got some useful experience with
Russian museum curators when talked them about the CIDOC CRM.
In my opinion, they treat the CRM as a tool,
but they don't see any "real-world" (or "day-to-day") tasks to use the tool.
So, I'd suggest to aim (a part of) the introduction at the
"
Dear Oeyvind,
Thank you very much for your comment! The new introduction was actually meant
to be more on a managerial level. I would much appreciate if
someone would volunteer to provide an even less technical text. Even though,
I believe that the museum curator is not the target role as a decis
Dear all,
Øyvind's comment reminded me that I promised Martin to write a comment.
There are several points here
One is Øyvind's comment about a text for non technical persons. I agree
with him that a non technical person may need a text that is easier to
understand. I assume Øyvind has in mind
Dear Martin,
From a museum professional with some, but not a lot of knowledge
about computer systems and with a strong interest in the work of
CIDOC, I received a comment about the scope of this recommendation
along the following lines:
> If it is meant for only IT professionals it is fin
Dear Martin and all,
I would like to suggest a type of persistent identifier called LSID that
uses an interesting identifier scheme.
"Life Science Identifiers (LSIDs) are persistent, location-independent,
resource identifiers for uniquely naming biologically significant resources
includin
Dear Detlev,
Apologies for my generalizing remarks from yesterday!
A) To take your example:
In paragraph 11, the recommendation says:
• ICOM has no particular proposal as to how such an aggregator may be
decided upon, but it could be based on a leading national or community
role, or a le
Dear Detlev,
Identification of Information Objects follows other rules we have not considered
in this recommendation. An agreement on identifiers for such objects as papyri
does not
solve the general scale of the problem, and the recommendation does not stay in
contradiction
to such noble excep
Dear All,
Of course there are many issues to be thought of, and I think we all appreciate
this discussion.
However, under the title of this Call for Comments, I kindly ask you
to stay in your comments absolutely focussed. Otherwise we cannot evaluate it.
This is not a recommendation for the Art
Citing Detlev (23.03.11 11:31):
I believe the
recommendation should encourage museums to associate their URIs with
metadata that carries all other known identifiers (if any).
I guess, this is the most important task for museums and should be the
core of the recommendation. Given the funding situ
Dear Martin and all,
while it is understandable that a recommendation from ICOM-CIDOC takes a
museum-centric view, this may obscure the fact that some communities
have been grappling with identity and identifiers for a long time.
Maximilian has mentioned the art trade, and objects described by
sch
Dear all,
First of all, I agree with both Maximilian's objections.
My comments:
1. Real use cases (regarding different syntax, encodings) are needed.
2. I would not use URIs like "http://www.russianmuseum.ru/Ж-91/1
(the last slash '/' is a part of the ivnentory ID)
3. Why not to propose more fle
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:02 AM, martin wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Your comments on http://www.cidoc-crm.org/URIs_and_Linked_Open_Data.html
> will be most welcome!
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
> --
Dear Martin,
I agree with Maximillian that overlapping URIs are inevitable for many
reasons. At ISAW, we've a
Dear all,
While I think this initiative is long needed, I'd like to raise two
objections:
First, I think the simple procedure should be explained in a equally
simple way, in a single paragraph, and then include the whole
explanation, without having to open a Word document. The first paragrap
Dear All,
Your comments on http://www.cidoc-crm.org/URIs_and_Linked_Open_Data.html
will be most welcome!
Best,
Martin
--
--
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625|
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)
26 matches
Mail list logo
