[Crm-sig] Call for Comments

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Wed Mar 23 19:59:53 EET 2011

Dear Detlev,

Identification of Information Objects follows other rules we have not considered
in this recommendation. An agreement on identifiers for such objects as papyri does not
solve the general scale of the problem, and the recommendation does not stay in contradiction
to such noble exceptions. The index you cite refers to the Inventory number of the museum, as
I see. Perfect. If someone needs to check, if the object has been entered twice by mistake, and
the number is consistent with the claimed object, you have to find the museum. Isn't it?
If you have publications from before this index, they still should refer to the inventory.
The recommendation explicitly says that museums may agree on a common policy with other organisations.
How many percent of the museum objects are in such consolidated, curated catalogues?
This is absolutely marginal.

The aggregators we fear are those that do not intend to curate their aggregations with scholarly



On 3/23/2011 5:31 PM, Detlev Balzer wrote:
> 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:
>    http://papyri.info/hgv/65499/
> 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
> URIs.
> 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.
> Regards,
> Detlev
> 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!
>> Best,
>> Martin


  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
  Research Director             |  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