[Crm-sig] My homework

Thu Dec 30 17:46:50 EET 2010

Dear all,
During our last meeting in Nuremberg I was asked to do some homework; here 
it is:


I was asked to look at coded values that serve to categorize corporate 
bodies in the INTERMARC format used by the National Library of France, in 
order to see if some of them could match the FRAD "Field of Activity" 
attribute for a Corporate Body, or the notion of "type of activity".
The INTERMARC format defines three distinct sets of coded values for 
corporate bodies:
- "Type of Corporate Body" < 
http://www.bnf.fr/documents/intermarc_ref_type-coll.pdf >, which 
corresponds to just F11 Corporate Body P2 has type E55 Type;
- "Official Organization" < 
http://www.bnf.fr/documents/intermarc_ref_collectivites.pdf >, which again 
corresponds to P2 ; and
- "Scope of Competence" ("domaine administratif" in French) < 
http://www.bnf.fr/documents/intermarc_ref_domaine-adm.pdf >, which is a 
good candidate for the "field of activity" or "type of activity" notion, 
as it includes codes for such terms as "scientific research", "public 
health"or "agriculture".

B] CIDOC CRM issues

a) Issue 184

Here is my suggested rephrasing for the 2nd paragraph (split into two) of 
the scope note for P69 is associated with:

"Any instance of E29 Design or Procedure may be associated with other 
designs or procedures. The property is assumed to be entirely recirpocal.

The P69.1 has type property of P69 is associated with allows the nature of 
the association to be specified; examples of types of association between 
instances of E29 Design or Procedure include: whole-part, sequence, 
prerequisite, etc."

b) Issue 188

I was asked to write something in order to make it explicit that the 
material foreseen by a design or procedure may not be the one that was 
actually used by an activity that claims to have used that design or 
procedure. I thought the most relevant place for this was in the scope 
note for P33 used specific technique (was used by) but if you think it 
necessary I can draft other wordings for properties P68 foresees use of 
(use foreseen by) and P126 employed (was employed in) as well.
By the way, the 2nd paragraph of the scope note for P33 is no longer 
relevant, or should be rephrased, as the domain of the property has 

Suggested additional paragraph:
"Although the instance of E29 Design or Procedure referred to is specific 
and documented, it may happen that an instance of E7 Activity associated 
with it through property P33 does not strictly adhere to all the 
instructions contained in that instance of E29 Design or Procedure, but 
follows an unwritten variant of it. As a consequence, it is not possible 
to regard the path from E11 Modification (subclass of E7 Activity) through 
P33 used specific technique (was used by), E29 Design or Procedure, P68 
foresees use of (use foreseen by) to E57 Material as semantically 
equivalent to the property E11 Modification P126 employed (was employed 
in) E57 Material. The specific instance of E57 Material used in the course 
of an instance of E11 Modification that applied a specific technique can 
be different from the instance of E57 Material stipulated by that 
technique; e.g., the recipe for a cake (E29) P68 foresees use of  sugar 
(E57), but the actual production of a cake (E12 Production, subclass of 
E11 Modification) may have used (P126) a sweetener (E57) instead of sugar, 
and yet be still regarded as using the recipe."

Martin, can you send me the text you want me to translate, please?

Best wishes and a very Happy New Year to you all,
Exposition  Primitifs de la photographie. Le calotype en France (1843 - 1860)  - jusqu'au 16 janvier 2011 - BnF - Richelieu / Galerie de photographie  Avant d'imprimer, pensez à l'environnement. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20101230/0ddc533b/attachment.htm 

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list