[Crm-sig] FRBRoo / CRM for prints?

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Mon Aug 3 22:36:08 EEST 2015

Dear Regine,

I think this is a nice application of FRBRoo to a more museum-like context.
The Work discussion is an old one. Both positions are justified. Therefore
FRBRoo defines an "Individual Work" in contrast to a "Complex Work".
In practice, i'd suggest instantiating the "Individual Work" can be 
ommitted, once it can
be inferred, as we had proposed to Europeana.

I'd argue, the distinction "they are sometimes considered as a new 
visual work, sometimes just as modification" is pointless,
because there is a new artistic contribution. The expression is new. The 
Work gets another realization. The plate is
physically modified. The feature on it, the scratches, are new. An 
Expression cannot be modified.

The "invenit" can be associated with the work conception, but is an 
expression in its own right. The "FECIT" has its own artistic 
contribution, I'd argue it is a derivative.

But there are better FRBR experts on this list!

I think it will be good to create a guideline for this case. I believe 
it should be discussed together with the bronze casting

All the best,


On 3/8/2015 11:23 πμ, Regine Stein wrote:
> Hi,
> Apparently my message didn't pass through on Friday (since it was too 
> big, apparently due to the citations of E12 and F32 in Martin's email, 
> I removed them now) so I try it again - best, Regine
> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> Betreff: 	Re: [Crm-sig] FRBRoo / CRM for prints?
> Datum: 	Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:33:14 +0200
> Von: 	Stein, Regine <r.stein at fotomarburg.de>
> An: 	crm-sig at ics.forth.gr, frbr-crm at ics.forth.gr
> Kopie (CC): 	Gudrun Knaus <gudrun.knaus at fotomarburg.de>
> Dear Christian-Emil, dear Martin,
> Many thanks for your responses!
> Our interest is indeed to understand the whole process of artistic 
> printing (firstly in early modern Europe), how the idea of a visual 
> work evolved in the process, what are the relationships between the 
> various (conceptual and physical) objects involved in the process.
> Making a printing plate always starts with a drawing which may either 
> be a copy of an existing visual work, a painting, or may be 
> intentionally designed for a print, either by the printmaker or by 
> another artist. In German language we typically use in documentation 
> the roles "Inventor" and "Stecher", according to the Latin "INVENIT" 
> and "FECIT" which one can often find in inscriptions (see e.g. 
> engravings by Marcantonio Raimondi with inscription "RAPHA URBI INVEN 
> / MAF" - Raphael invented it / Marcantonio fecit = Marcantonio made 
> it). Then, the same visual idea may be realized in several printing 
> plates. Then, we have prints from different states of this same 
> printing plate, and they are sometimes considered as a new visual 
> work, sometimes just as modification. In order to limit the number of 
> copies a printing plate may be scratched.  If we are lucky the 
> printing plate still exists somewhere but obviously in its last state, 
> and earlier states are only known through the prints. Then prints may 
> be compiled into series and so on.
> As we are dealing with multiples we wonder if FRBRoo is appropriate to 
> approach this, our questions include:
> - Should we consider multiple realizations of the same drawing in 
> various printing plates as multiple F2 Expression (F24 Publication 
> Expression) of the same F1 Work (F14 Individual Work)? Or are they all 
> different works?
> - Should we consider different states of one printing plate as F3 
> Manifestation Product Type?
> - How to reflect the different states of the printing plate as "used 
> specific object" in E12 Production?
> - Analysis of what is typically recorded in the documentation in a 
> museum holding one (or multiple) print(s): which information pertains 
> to the Work / Expression (e.g. the subject /  P62 depicts), which to 
> the printing plate / F3 Manifestation Product Type (e.g. the state), 
> which to the actual museum object / F4 Item?
> We are grateful for further comments on this, and will certainly be 
> back to the group as we move on.
> Btw, the AAT of course differentiates
> "prints (visual works)" -> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300041273
>  - or more specifically "engravings (prints)" -> 
> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300041340
> "printing plates" -> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300022755
> as well as the process of "engraving (printing process)" -> 
> http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300053225
> Best wishes
> Regine
> Am 30.07.2015 um 21:58 schrieb martin:
>> Dear Regine,
>> There has been an implicit discussion in the CRM about prints as 
>> production with particular tools.
>> see:
>> E12 Production
>> [...]
>> §Rembrandt’s creating of the seventh state of his etching “Woman 
>> sitting half dressed beside a stove”, 1658, identified by Bartsch 
>> Number 197 (E12,E65,E81)
>> So, the print plate undergoes "transformations" and implies the 
>> creation of an information object being present on the plate(s) and 
>> the prints, or, in more creative techniques, the information content 
>> of the plate is "incorporated" in the prints.
>> The print plate is "used specific object" in the printing process, 
>> but a specialization of E12 may be adequate to fix the
>> specific kind of use and its consequences of information transfer to 
>> the copies.
>> We are also discussing a generalization of
>> F32 Carrier Production Event
>> [...]
>> into industrial production, of cars, tools, coins and whatever.
>> Artistic prints with limited copies etc may not be regarded as 
>> producing "things of type XXX".
>> A CRM extension into the world of artitstic printing may be interesting.
>> If its only about using AAT vocabulary, Christian-Emil's remark's 
>> should be sufficient.
>> I do not know if the AAT differentiates the plate as museum object 
>> from the copy.
>> All the best,
>> Martin
>> On 30/7/2015 9:48 μμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
>>> Hi Regine
>>> If I understand AAT correctly, it is a thesaurus and is as such a hierarchy of concepts and can be seen as a incarnation of a hierarchy under the E55 Type.
>>> In a CRM/FRBRoo context a print is a physical object (one of the items of  a series), for instance a lithography, a  paper carrying an image  or more. A lithography would usually  be given the AAT type 'print'  (or belong to this type/be a member of the set of objects that can be said to belong to the hypothetical set of all prints).
>>> This may not be what you have in mind?
>>> Regards,
>>> Christian-Emil
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Stein,
>>>> Regine
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 3:06 PM
>>>> To:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr;frbr-crm at ics.forth.gr
>>>> Cc: Gudrun Knaus
>>>> Subject: [Crm-sig] FRBRoo / CRM for prints?
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Did anybody go into depth with FRBRoo / CRM modelling or mapping for
>>>> prints (visual works) (->http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300041273  ;-)) , or can
>>>> point us to respective work on this kind of material?
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Regine
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig


  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)   |
                N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,             |
                 GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece               |
              Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl           |

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20150803/956da688/attachment.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list