[crm-sig] TEI and CRM

Tony Gill tg at artstor.org
Wed May 19 17:46:39 EEST 2004


Thanks for forwarding this Christian-Emil, it's interesting.

I'm very surprised that the TEI folks consider ISO standards to be "proprietary"! ISO standards are NOT proprietary -- in fact, the whole point of publishing standards through an international standards body such as ISO is to PREVENT self-serving corporate interests from influencing the design and maintenance of the standard.

I think this is a terminology issue, and what they really mean rather than "proprietary" is "not free."

I agree that Nick or Martin should disabuse them of their misconceptions about the meaning of the term "proprietary" and the ongoing (free) availability of the CIDOC CRM.

Cheers,

T.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-crm-sig at ics.forth.gr [mailto:owner-crm-sig at ics.forth.gr]On
> Behalf Of Christian-Emil Ore
> Sent: Wednesday 19 May 2004 5:20 AM
> To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> Subject: [crm-sig] TEI and CRM
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I don't know how many of you who read the TEI-list. There 
> seems to be not 
> too much communication between the TEI (text encoding 
> initiative) and the 
> museum communities. But I cannot see any scholarly/scientific 
> reason for 
> this other than tradition. TEI is good on encoding texts 
> (form, structure 
> and bibliographical information), but it is incomplete and 
> unsystematic 
> with respect to encoding and the extraction of semantic 
> content. However, 
> Franco Niccolucci, Nick Ryan, Jon Holmen and I have worked on 
> how to extend 
> TEI with the CRM-ontology to mark up older archaeological texts.
> 
> At the end of this email I have attached two postings from 
> the TEI-list. In 
> my opinion it is important to inform the TEI-community why we 
> have chosen 
> to make CRM into an ISO standard and which (if any) 
> limitations this may have.
> 
> I think it would be a good idea if Nick Croft or Martin Dörr 
> could send an 
> explaining answer to the TEI-list.
> 
> Best,
> Christian-Emil Ore
> 
> **************************************************************
> **************************************************************
> ****************
> X-From_: owner-tei-l at listserv.brown.edu Tue May 18 19:40:01 2004
> Envelope-to: c.e.s.ore at MUSPRO.UIO.NO
> User-Agent: Turnpike/6.02-M (<nbMm9VyrkTrnU+XWsqtGaM0Qa6>)
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by 
> listserv.brown.edu id
>                        i4IHVeA20647
> Date:         Tue, 18 May 2004 18:31:29 +0100
> Reply-To: Richard Light <richard at LIGHT.DEMON.CO.UK>
> Sender: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
>                <TEI-L at LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU>
> From: Richard Light <richard at LIGHT.DEMON.CO.UK>
> Subject:      Re: TEI policy [was: Re: Prosopographic tags: 
> where should they
>                be?]
> Comments: To: Dieter Köhler <service at PHILO.DE>
> To: TEI-L at LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by 
> listserv.brown.edu 
> id i4IHViA20674
> X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for 
> viruses/spam.. 
> Contact postmaster at uio.no if you have questions about this scanning
> X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found
> X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 12)
> 
> In message <5.2.1.1.0.20040512130036.00bb22e0 at pop3.philo.de>, Dieter
> Köhler <service at PHILO.DE> writes
> 
> >According to the "Introduction" on the CIDOC web-site, it is 
> planed to turn
> >the Conceptual Reference Model into an ISO standard.  
> Recalling the recent
> >thread about ISO's policy regarding language identifiers, I 
> wonder what
> >legal and practical implications this has for adopting and 
> using (parts of)
> >their ontology for TEI.  I have the impression that such 
> issues are getting
> >more and more important, as creating ontologies and markup 
> schemes becomes
> >a business that makes money.
> >
> >Personally I would prefer that best practice for academic 
> text encoding
> >discourages the use of such proprietary standards wherever 
> possible, even
> >if it is then necessary to develop alternatives for already existing
> >standards.  The cumulated costs of proprietary standards and 
> their negative
> >effect on free information exchange are, in my opinion, too high.
> 
> I would strongly support this sentiment myself, and I am somewhat
> dismayed to see the CIDOC CRM branded as a "proprietary standard",
> simply because it is being put forward as an International Standard.
> 
> It is certainly, in practice, being developed by dedicated members of
> the museums community for the common good.  Whatever policies 
> ISO might
> be pursuing, I am sure that CIDOC itself has no intention to 
> license or
> otherwise restrict the use of the CRM.  (I will certainly be raising
> this issue with CIDOC.)
> 
> Come to that, where does this line of argument leave the TEI's use of
> SGML (ISO 8879-1986) ??
> 
> Richard Light
> 
> --
> Richard Light
> SGML/XML and Museum Information Consultancy
> richard at light.demon.co.uk
> 
> **************************************************************
> **************************************************************
> ***************************
> 
> 
> >X-From_: owner-tei-l at listserv.brown.edu Wed May 12 05:44:25 2004
> >Envelope-to: c.e.s.ore at MUSPRO.UIO.NO
> >Apparently-To: <TEI-L at LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU>
> >X-Sender:
> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
> >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by 
> listserv.brown.edu id
> >                       i4C3P0A28188
> >Date:         Wed, 12 May 2004 15:23:56 +1200
> >Reply-To: Dieter Köhler <service at PHILO.DE>
> >Sender: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
> >               <TEI-L at LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU>
> >From: Dieter Köhler <service at PHILO.DE>
> >Subject:      TEI policy [was: Re: Prosopographic tags: 
> where should they be?]
> >To: TEI-L at LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
> >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by 
> listserv.brown.edu 
> >id i4C3PRA28252
> >X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for 
> viruses/spam. 
> >Contact postmaster at uio.no if you have questions about this scanning
> >X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found
> >X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 12)
> >
> >>The museum community has created a high-level framework - 
> the Conceptual
> >>Reference Model (http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/) which 
> describes the types
> >>of classes which we might be interested in, and their 
> properties, in a
> >>high-level abstract model.  Could be useful.
> >
> >According to the "Introduction" on the CIDOC web-site, it is 
> planed to turn
> >the Conceptual Reference Model into an ISO standard.  
> Recalling the recent
> >thread about ISO's policy regarding language identifiers, I 
> wonder what
> >legal and practical implications this has for adopting and 
> using (parts of)
> >their ontology for TEI.  I have the impression that such 
> issues are getting
> >more and more important, as creating ontologies and markup 
> schemes becomes
> >a business that makes money.
> >
> >The first fundamental principle of the TEI Consortium, 
> according to its
> >charter, is: "The TEI guidelines, other documentation, and 
> DTD should be
> >free to users".  As encouraging this statement in principle 
> is, it is very
> >vague, though.  And I wonder whether there exists really a 
> consensus among
> >the TEI Consortium members what this statement implies in detail.
> >
> >One important lesson to be learned from the open source 
> movement may be
> >that it is essential to get the legal framework right and 
> clear.  Applied
> >to the TEI, this means that further efforts are needed to 
> clarify the TEI
> >Consortium's policy for areas such as:
> >
> >1. Use of an ontology or markup scheme for data encoding
> >2. Implementation of an ontology or markup scheme into software
> >3. Adoption of ideas by other ontologies or markup schemes
> >4. Accessibility of the specification
> >5. Republication of the specification (completely or in part)
> >
> >These issues are not only vital for the TEI DTDs and the guidelines
> >themselves, but of similar importance for the standards 
> referred to in the
> >guidelines as "normative", or only as "best practice" or
> >"recommended".  For example, the current guidelines 
> recommend ISO 8601 as
> >the format for the "value" attribute of tags from the 
> temporal expression
> >class (see P4, sec. 20.4).  However, the latest version of 
> this 30 pages
> >specification, ISO 8601:2000, is not freely available on the 
> Internet, but
> >only for CHF 110.00 from the ISO shop
> >("http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/prods-services/CatalogueDetailPage
.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=26780&ICS1=1&ICS2=140&ICS3=30").
>
>Personally I would prefer that best practice for academic text encoding
>discourages the use of such proprietary standards wherever possible, even
>if it is then necessary to develop alternatives for already existing
>standards.  The cumulated costs of proprietary standards and their negative
>effect on free information exchange are, in my opinion, too high.
>
>Dieter Köhler





More information about the Crm-sig mailing list