[Crm-sig] Call for Comments
db at dbalzer.net
Wed Mar 23 17:31:58 EET 2011
Dear Martin and all,
while it is understandable that a recommendation from ICOM-CIDOC takes a
museum-centric view, this may obscure the fact that some communities
have been grappling with identity and identifiers for a long time.
Maximilian has mentioned the art trade, and objects described by
scholars not affiliated with a particular museum. Let me add another
example, which is that of papyrology:
What we see here is a chain of identifiers that had already been
compiled into a cumulative catalogue (the Heidelberger
Gesamtverzeichnis, HGV) before being published on-line.
Rather than pondering the idea of a persistent URI, I believe the
recommendation should encourage museums to associate their URIs with
metadata that carries all other known identifiers (if any). Any
institution or project with the necessary resources can then stitch
together related descriptions using a suitable predicate over a pair of
This will work even if none of the recommendations outlined in sections
8 to 11 (except for the last paragraph in 11) can be followed. So why
not split up the document into one that describes the absolute
essentials (constructing URIs, resolving them to processable metadata)
and another which outlines policies for usage of these URIs by any party
that wishes to refer to them in their own LOD statements?
One personal remark concerning "leading national or community roles" as
mentioned in section 11: In my experience, these institutions are
sometimes all too willing to take over interesting ("buzzword") duties,
only to realize that their core staff is so busy with routine work that
the prestigious new task ends up on the desk of an apprentice.
Am 21.03.2011 17:02, schrieb martin:
> Dear All,
> Your comments on http://www.cidoc-crm.org/URIs_and_Linked_Open_Data.html
> will be most welcome!
Detlev Balzer, Hövelnstr. 11, D-23566 Lübeck
PGP Fingerprint B5F3 6467 0615 1EB4 B602 8E41 DE70 8D59 0A8B BBD7
More information about the Crm-sig