[crm-sig] 4 new issues, Collection class
martin
martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Oct 2 17:10:33 EEST 2001
Tony Gill wrote:
>
> OK, here are a few discussion issues I would like to propose:
> 2. Collection class
> I've always been unhappy about the absence of a Collection class in the
> CRM, but couldn't think of a good response to Martin's question about what
> it's unique properties should be. Well, Martin himself came up with a
> candidate property for the Collection class, "Curated by", so I'm very
> happy to propose that we now add this class. My initial inclination would
> be to make it a subclass of E24 Physical Man Made Stuff, since I think we
> should limit it's scope to the kinds of physical collections that museums,
> libraries and archives deal with (i.e. explicitly and deliberately exclude
> collections of conceptual objects such as ideas, dreams etc.), but it
> should probably include electronic objects.
Actually this issue exists, and has been proposed already.
I prefer "curated by (curates)" over my proposal : "maintained by (maintains)".
Alternatively, one could use "has current keeper" as the curator?
Do we regard "has current keeper" as implied by "curates" ?
Is the curation different in practice from ownership and physical
custody?
This poses two questions:
1) which is the related activity:
Curation ,
subclass of: Activity
curated : Collection
Then "curated by" is a shot cut of Curation, following standard patterns.
Another possible generalization is to introduce a concept of
"Caring For" - cared for: Physical Stuff
which would imply custody, guarding, curating, maintaining, feeding etc. ?
2) How do things come in and out of the
Collection?
I propose:
Part Addition
subclass of: Activity
added: Physical Object
to: Physical Object
Part Removal
subclass of: Activity
removed: Physical Object
from: Physical Object
This generalizes part movement, probably useful for archtecture and
archeology.
Tony, (or anyone else) could you give data structure examples of how collections are
dealt with?
Electronic objects:
I need better understanding of what the physicality of having an electronic object
in a collection is.
I can see the following: One or multiple copies of an electronic (immaterial as such)
object are physically present in a database. The latter is a physical object, which,
if it is destroyed, implies destruction of its parts. So those are lost, and if they
were the last copy world-wide, the immaterial object is FORGOTTEN.
In this interpretation, the Electronic Object Copy fulfills the necessary properties to take
part in a physical collection. I would introduce a new class:
Electronic Object Copy
subclass of: Physical Feature
is copy of: Electronic Information Object
Any comments?
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(81)391625 |
Senior Researcher | Fax:+30(81)391609 |
Project Leader SIS | Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
|
Centre for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/proj/isst |
--------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Crm-sig
mailing list