[Crm-sig] Fixity Hash in CRM
daniel at verisart.com
Thu Sep 10 01:07:40 EEST 2015
That makes sense. For instance, one image could have multiple sizes. We
would think about them as the same image but their hashes would be
completely different. I am not as familiar with FRBRoo, but I took a look
at F4 Manifestation Singleton, and I'm not sure if its intention is
something like this.
One thing that is confusing is that in many cases like in the british
museum example here:
The resource is a specific digital version of an image with a specific
asset id and a specific filename. So it would seem that if I added a
property about that resource it would be about the specific binary data,
and not about all possible versions of that image.
If anyone knows of an example implementation that addresses fixity it would
be a great help.
P.S. I was using British Museum's linked data as a guide for most of my
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Simon Spero <sesuncedu at gmail.com> wrote:
> Another problem with this is that a hash of a bit string does not identify
> an Image (even if the hash is 1:1).
> An Image is abstract and conceptual, and has an identity is preserved
> across transformations that would generate different bit strings.
> Going the other way, I believe that CIDOC does require that the same bit
> string not correspond to multiple images. For example, an imaging sensor
> might capture an image with the shutter closed at the start of a series of
> measurements - such an image could be used for calibration.
> Many such images might have identical bit strings, but would be
> conceptually different works under some stances. However, since they have
> indistinguishable appearances, they are the same Image.
> Fixity hashes might be better treated as properties of a FRBRoo
> Manifestation; such properties are intrinsic to the Manifestation*; they
> are not externally assigned in the same way that a URI, accession number,
> etc are.
> * or as a the value of a property that must be the same for every item
> that is an instance of that Manifestation
> On Sep 9, 2015 4:15 PM, "daniel riley" <daniel at verisart.com> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> I wanted to get confirmation on the correct application of the Cidoc-crm
>> in the case of checksum hashes (i.e. fixity values).
>> For instance if the hash of a digital image file computes to:
>> My first thought would be to use:
>> E38_Image - P1_is_identified_by - E42_Identifier (hash value)
>> E42_Identifier - P2_has_type - "SHA256 HASH"
>> However, the scope notes for E42_Identifier explicitly states:
>> The class E42 Identifier is not normally used for machine-generated
>> A hash is definitely machine generated, so what are the other options
>> here? Should I use a different ontology for this case?
>> Daniel Riley
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig