[Crm-sig] minutes

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Nov 4 16:46:59 EET 2008


Here the text without appendix:

CIDOC 2008 Conference
18th CRM SIG meeting
Athens, 15/9/2008
Minutes

Topics discussed:
Sunday, Sept, 14th
Future element in CRM
The CRM models an event that has happened seen from the current point in time. The final paragraph of the scope note for the property P20 is 
not consistent with this view. If the bank (in the example) does not succeed in its take  over plan because it goes bankrupt before the take 
over event should have taken place, then that event will never happen and will not exist.  Thus P20 had specific purpose (was purpose of) 
actually implies that an activity succeeds in it achieving its aims.

The scope note of P20 had specific purpose (was purpose of) and P21 had general purpose (was purpose of) is changed. The new scope note, 
elaborated by Steve is presented in appendix A.

P51 has former or current owner (is former or current owner of) is subproperty P105 right held by (has right on)
We discussed if we need extra properties for holder and owner. Finally we decided that  P105 is a superproperty of P51 and we changed the 
scope note of P105 to be generalized. In the Appendix A the changed scope note is presented.

Rename E29 Design or Procedure. P68 usually employs (is usually employed by):E57 Material

Martin proposed to change the name of the property to P68 foresees use of (use foreseen by). This change is proposed for better 
understanding. The changes are described in the appendix A.
Text for types
We discussed the test about types and decided to rewrite the text about types and the scope note of E55 Type. CEO will do this.
Discussion about archives requirements

Wendy Duff (Associate Professor, Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto, Canada), and Pat Riva (Head of Monographs 
Cataloguing Section, Cataloguing Directorate for the Heritage Collection, Québec National Library and Archives, Canada) represented the 
archival community in the following discussion of a possible common reference model for archives, libraries and museums.



Wendy Duff presented her view of the Archival process (above). Key to understanding the archival mission is the frequent obligation of an 
archive to preserve legal records of an organization or governmental body. This is distinct from museums and libraries.

About the legal world of archives: the idea is to have unified resources and there is an intention for reengineering the archival systems.

ISAD provides guidance for the description of fonds and their component parts.
ISAAR provides guidance for the creation of authority record information about the creators of archival materials.
ISDF provides guidance for the description of functions of records creators. The purpose of ISDIAH is to develop a standardised description 
of holders of archives for making an archival information system more usable.
Members of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Encoded Archival Context (EAC) have developed a draft schema requesting feedback from projects that 
implement this specification on an experimental basis. The EAC is not an international initiative. They work with the local community.
Neither conceptual nor common data model exists. Also the finding aids are essential.

About Record authentication: the intention is to describe   the purpose of creating an archive or document, protecting the evidence from the 
presentation view??
Finally there was a proposal to start with the characterization of different functions and making a collection of relevant standards and 
principles, life cycle of records. Also we decided to discuss on Thursday Sept, 17th  about how we make this collaboration attractive and to 
advertise this collaboration on CIDOC site.
Collaboration with Co-reference Group
Topics discussed:
The collaboration with Co-reference Group is needed, since the information integration scenario does not work without co-reference.
An interesting subject is what kind of reasoning can be performed with CRM compatible data. Also co-reference is an integral part of the 
structure.
We decided to inform CRM-SIG about collaboration topics with the Co-reference Group and we might extent the CRM for supporting co-reference
FRBRoo.
Pat gave the overview of the review of FRBRoo. A summary of the comments received follows:
1.	Description for figures in the first section is missing
2.	How the quantification is used and what for. Better copy from CRM the respective description into FRBRoo.
3.	The Property hierarchy in CRM should be corrected in the text of FRBRoo.
4.	Corporate Body is a subclass of E74 Group.
5.	About the official status: the  FRBRoo is an approved IFLA document.
6.	We should have a final look on FRBRoo before the change of the version. The new version of FRBRoo will be 1.0.
Thursday, Sept 17th

Discussion about Disjointness:
We discussed if we need an additional field in the scope note to describe disjointness. Finally we stated that in CRM, the text and not the 
class name, does express the meaning of the class and we decided by voting  not to add the additional field in the scope note.
Methodological considerations:
We discussed methodological considerations or explanations about CRM. We all agreed that there is a limitation to what we have to put in the 
standard text and we should have a separate text of explanations to CRM.
CEO will start to write this document. After Oct 15th CEO will present the subjects that will be introduced in this text. The Erlangen team 
will write down what they want to know.
Compatibility:
We discussed if the new compatibility text should be in the standard. We decided that it should be in the standard with the next amendment. 
Then Martin presented the latest text of compatibility and will ask for comments by all of us by email.  This text is presented in Appendix B.
Discussion about possible collaboration for an Archival Model

Daniel Pitti (Associate Director, Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities, University of Virginia, USA), and Pat Riva 
represented the archive experts in the following discussion.
Ideas discussed:
•	The development of a common model is a complicated and difficult work since different people have different interpretation, but the 
archival community will benefit.
•	ICA(International Council of Archives) should be convinced of the value of this action.
•	There is a pressure from Canada and Australia to have a common model.
•	We should be very careful about how we express this interest, since the archival community has not an ontology in a formal sense.
•	The harmonization method was discussed and we explained that in the case of FRBR we changed FRBRER but we also changed the CRM for 
addressing the notions of FRBRER.
•	Finally we decided to write a memorandum answering to the question of “why we need this” and to forward this text to the archival 
community. This text should comment on the following topics:
1.	inner consistency of archive format and practices
2.	to see museum material under archival perspective, more general to harmonize a model for seeing documentation material under other 
disciplinary perspectives (ALM)
3.	facilitate the creation of effective information and retrieval system for
o	(1) aggregating archival material
o	(2) enabling cross disciplinarity  access – we should be able to automatically create finding aids from an ontological model. The archival 
community has a great diversity of current practices.

At the end we decided, before writing something, we need a common meeting with interested representatives of the archival community to see 
develop a common view. We should have a short document of what we discussed here and then invite to a common discussion.
This document should be like a position paper and it should be mentioned that the conceptual model is not like descriptive standards or 
communication standards. Also the objectives and possible benefits should be clearly stated.
Pat, Daniel, Wendy, Lina, Martin will prepare this short document to be discussed to the next CRM meeting.
Subjects for the next meeting
1.	Data transformation software museum dat -> RDFS CRM /OWL
2.	Primitive types and XML, XSD data types – we need a clear recommendation
3.	Ontology and data structures
4.	Use of cardinality constraints and use cases






-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------
  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
  Principle Researcher          |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
                                                              |
                Center 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/isl               |
--------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list