Dear Robert,
A quick note on the E34 Inscription class, following Franco’s considerations
(and thanks to him for pulling me in :-))
Some time ago, in a paper illustrating a possible CIDOC CRM application to the
epigraphic world, we started investigating the degree of applicability of E34
to th
Thank you, Franco.
I completely agree with your assessment here. The concern with the current
model, of course, is that E34 Inscription is a subclass of E33 Linguistic
Object (along with E37 Mark) meaning that every Inscription is also a
Linguistic Object. For your examples, before the cont
Dear Robert
I had a look at the page. Interesting, at first sight I agree with most of the
statements there, but it will require more attention to comment. Anyway,
there’s one thing I can say now.
I think that the analysis of E34 Inscription is a bit superficial. An
inscription, as epigraphist
Hi Philip,
Indeed, _all_ of the subclasses of E41 other than E42 should probably be
deprecated. They add nothing new, semantically, compared to Appellation.
Also the subclasses of E13 … (E14-E17) are overly specific, and insufficient.
There’s no Assignment for Appellations, for example, yet
Hi all,
I’m currently creating new resource models for the Arches project and looking
at Actors.
Since E82 has been deprecated in favour of E41 then surely P131 should also be
deprecated along with the text in the introduction which refers to these in CRM
Compatibility of Information Systems pa
