[Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Jan 21 15:50:40 EET 2020


Dear Achille, All,

Yes! A characteristic renaming would be "E37 Marks or Inscriptions". 
Anyway, we cannot leave a gap between Marks and Inscriptions. There are 
two principles: The being "marked", and the form of content. E37 is 
about the process of generation. E34 is about the content following the 
process. Another class for "marks in the narrower sense" would be 
morphological. That leaves a gap in the common kind of genesis.

We should be clear about that, and not intuitive.

Best,

Martin

On 1/21/2020 10:32 AM, Achille Felicetti wrote:
> Dear Martin,
>
> Yes, this makes perfectly sense to me.
>
> I agree that it is necessary to define a complete chain linking the 
> symbolic level with the physical one and I also agree that Mark and 
> Robert are maybe chasing a new and more specific class, similar to our 
> written text in some way. Such a new class, in my opinion, would be 
> helpful to deal e.g. with non-linguistic or non-glottographic entities 
> used to mark objects or other similar entities like graffiti.
>
> My only doubt in the case of the E37 class is whether this is 
> adequately defined to act as a superclass of all the others, existing 
> or new ones(for example see the “shortness” specified as one of the 
> characteristics of E37, as also noted by Christian-Emil). Aside from 
> renaming it, which would be highly desirable as well :-)
>
> Ciao,
> Achille
>
>> Il giorno 20 gen 2020, alle ore 18:24, Martin Doerr 
>> <martin at ics.forth.gr <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>> ha scritto:
>>
>> Dear Achille,
>>
>> So, clearly,
>>
>> This “… subclass of E25 Man-Made Feature intended to describe a 
>> particular feature (i.e., set of glyphs) created (i.e., written) on 
>> various kinds of support, having semiotic significance and the 
>> declared purpose of conveying a specific message towards a given 
>> recipient or group of recipients”
>>
>> is a well justified class. It obviously is the carrier of a series of 
>> conceptual objects, one incorporating the other. It is not in the 
>> CRM, and not in any contradiction to E34 and E37.
>>
>> It starts with the particular visual form, which incorporates its 
>> actual symbol arrangement, which incorporates the supposed original 
>> or intended symbol arrangement(eroded chars etc), which incorporates 
>> the expansion of abbreviations, which incorporates the propositional 
>> content, at least, this is the good practice in the CIL.
>>
>> Then, we can identify E34 Inscription with one of those.
>>
>> Then, we miss the generalization of the "Written Text" to any 
>> symbolic "marking", and the generalizations of E34 Inscription to the 
>> any such "marking" at the symbolic level. The latter is currently E37 
>> Mark, regardless what people like "Mark" to be. A narrow definition 
>> of Mark, as Robert and Ethan suggests, would be a subclass of E37 
>> Mark, and would need a new class code.
>> (Please do not confuse labels with definitions. Don't argue E37 must 
>> be something different, because it is called "mark".  You may instead 
>> argue for renaming E37...).
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> martin
>>
>> On 1/20/2020 11:29 AM, Achille Felicetti wrote:
>>> Dear Ethan, all,
>>>
>>> A small contribution to this interesting discussion. As mentioned by 
>>> Martin, Francesca Murano and I have investigated the linguistic, 
>>> physical and conceptual aspect of inscriptions and texts in recent 
>>> years. Our work is oriented towards the construction of an extension 
>>> of the CIDOC CRM for epigraphy and ancient texts (CRMtex, 
>>> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmtex/), and we have published our 
>>> reflections in two papers that I report below for anyone interested 
>>> (you can also download them from here: 
>>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CbsRXJ6SdG6JT_QjKmJ98vgklz7Jx4sR):
>>>
>>> 1. A. Felicetti, F. Murano, P. Ronzino, F. Niccolucci (2015) CIDOC 
>>> CRM and Epigraphy: a Hermeneutic Challenge, Paola Ronzino and 
>>> Franco Niccolucci (eds.): Extending, Mapping and Focusing the CIDOC 
>>> CRM (CRMEX 2015) Workshop, 19th International Conference on Theory 
>>> and Practice of Digital Libraries (TPDL 2015), Poznan, 
>>> Poland, September 17, 2015.
>>>
>>> 2. Felicetti, A., Murano, F., (2016), Scripta manent: a CIDOC CRM 
>>> semiotic reading of ancient texts, «International Journal on Digital 
>>> Libraries» 17/1, Springer, pp. 1-8, DOI: 10.1007/s00799-016-0189-z
>>>
>>> In our works we have already highlighted the "weaknesses" of the E34 
>>> and E37 classes with respect to epigraphy (see paragraph 4.3 of 
>>> paper 1 and 4.2 of paper 2), as highlighted by Christian-Emil, and 
>>> proposed some possible solutions concerning the text and its 
>>> nature. I paste some excerpts here, and I refer you to reading the 
>>> papers for more information. Regarding the E34 class, we stated that:
>>>
>>> "In CIDOC CRM, textual entities are conceived as immaterial, and 
>>> essentially conceptual, entities. Both the classes E33 Linguistic 
>>> Object and E34 Inscription belong to the domain of conceptual 
>>> objects, defined as “non-material products of our minds and other 
>>> human produced data”, something that renders only in part the 
>>> essence of what a text is, not taking into account its ‘materiality’ 
>>> which is a fundamental component of its identity”
>>>
>>> We did similar considerations for E37. Thus, a written text in our 
>>> perspective is defined as the product of a semiotic process, 
>>> involving an encoding (“writing”) and a decoding 
>>> (“reading”) process. The scope note for the Written Text class says 
>>> that it is a …
>>>
>>> “… subclass of E25 Man-Made Feature intended to describe a 
>>> particular feature (i.e., set of glyphs) created (i.e., written) on 
>>> various kinds of support, having semiotic significance and the 
>>> declared purpose of conveying a specific message towards a given 
>>> recipient or group of recipients”
>>>
>>> We have submitted a third paper on the subject to the Semantic Web 
>>> Journal (special issue for Cultural Heritage) and is currently under 
>>> review. I will also send you references of that if it is approved. 
>>> Concerning the linguistic value of a text, an excerpt from it is 
>>> reported below:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Although every speech can be transposed into an equivalent written 
>>> message, and vice versa, speech has a priority over writing, at 
>>> least in four respects: phylogenetic, ontogenetic, functional and 
>>> structural. In fact, all languages are spoken but not necessarily 
>>> written; every human being learns to speak naturally spontaneously, 
>>> the ability to write coming only later and through specific 
>>> training; the spoken language is used in a wider and differentiated 
>>> range of uses and functions; writing originated as a representation 
>>> of speech. According to Ferdinand de Saussure [17], in fact, «a 
>>> language and its written form constitute two separate systems of 
>>> signs. The sole reason for the existence of the latter is to 
>>> represent the former». In this semiotic perspective, it is worth 
>>> considering that even in writing, as in the analysis of the 
>>> linguistic system, it is necessary to distinguish the concrete level 
>>> of the personal execution (i.e. the real act of tracing signs on a 
>>> surface) from the abstract level which all the single occurrences 
>>> must be took back to, on the basis of a sameness principle (e.g. the 
>>> identification of an “A”, independently from the peculiar shape 
>>> somebody gives to it).
>>>
>>> This, as it is easy to understand, marks a decisive difference with 
>>> the marks, in which the linguistic aspect is decidedly less marked, 
>>> even in the presence of monograms and other similar symbols (which 
>>> remain symbols without phonetic value, although using signs usually 
>>> devoted to representation of sounds).
>>>
>>> I hope this helps. However, we are convinced that a thorough 
>>> revision of classes E34 and d E37 is absolutely necessary. Could 
>>> this be a topic of discussion at the next SIG?
>>>
>>> Bests,
>>> Achille
>>>
>>>
>>>> Il giorno 20 gen 2020, alle ore 00:31, Ethan Gruber 
>>>> <ewg4xuva at gmail.com <mailto:ewg4xuva at gmail.com>> ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>> A short text on a physical object is always an inscription. Whether 
>>>> or not it's a mark (according to the current definition in the 
>>>> ontology) probably depends on a greater level of specialized knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 6:04 PM Robert Sanderson 
>>>> <RSanderson at getty.edu <mailto:RSanderson at getty.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     From a practical perspective, when modeling a short text that’s
>>>>     on a physical object … how can I know when that should be a
>>>>     Mark+Linguistic Object, or when it is an Inscription?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     *From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr
>>>>     <mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Martin
>>>>     Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>>
>>>>     *Date: *Saturday, January 18, 2020 at 12:32 PM
>>>>     *To: *"crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>"
>>>>     <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>>
>>>>     *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     I understand the following:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     This means, that there cannot be Linguistic Objects among the
>>>>     marks that are not inscriptions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     This violates the Open World assumptions. We know that
>>>>     Inscriptions are also Linguistic Objects, but that does NOT
>>>>     imply that there may be other Linguistic Objects among the Marks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     It is most probably the case, but we neither know for sure, nor
>>>>     make such statements in the CRM.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     I also do not see a particular utility in this statement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     All other rules A-D provided by Robert  appear to be correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On 1/18/2020 6:27 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         E37 Mark             E33 Linguistic Object
>>>>
>>>>         |                                   /
>>>>
>>>>         E34 Inscription
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         ​​E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions are
>>>>         Linguistic Objects
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         The sentence is difficult to understand.  I try.
>>>>
>>>>         Pr defintion:
>>>>
>>>>         All (instances of E37) marks which are (instances of E34)
>>>>         Inscriptions are (instances of E33) Linguistic Objects.
>>>>
>>>>         The only difference between E34 Inscription and  E37 Mark
>>>>         is that E34 is a restriction of E37 Mark to those which
>>>>         also are  instances of  E33 Lingustic Object that is has
>>>>         a language.  Most sequences of letters and signs do not
>>>>         have a language.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         C-E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         *From:*Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>         <mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin
>>>>         Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr> <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>         *Sent:* 18 January 2020 13:59
>>>>         *To:* crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>         *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of E37 Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         I also disagree with E, but letters and combinations should
>>>>         not be regarded Linguistic Objects. They do not have a
>>>>         particular language, translation etc. No need to make them
>>>>         linguistic objects.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         On 1/18/2020 1:53 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             Given this answer to E is part of documentation
>>>>             practice, could it be solved by double instantiation?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             All the best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             Øyvind
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 Am 17.01.2020 um 22:18 schrieb Ethan Gruber
>>>>                 <ewg4xuva at gmail.com <mailto:ewg4xuva at gmail.com>>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 I agree with your assertion of D: that not all
>>>>                 inscriptions are marks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 I disagree with E. A mark can most certainly be a
>>>>                 letter or combination of letters. Have you ever
>>>>                 noticed the letter "P" on an American coin? It's a
>>>>                 mint mark representing Philadelphia. The "SC"
>>>>                 characters on a Roman coin correspond to the
>>>>                 authority of the Senate. These are obviously
>>>>                 linguistic objects that carry a narrower semantic
>>>>                 meaning as defined in the scope note for E37 Mark.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 Ethan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 3:49 PM Robert Sanderson
>>>>                 <RSanderson at getty.edu
>>>>                 <mailto:RSanderson at getty.edu>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     I think that I agree 😊To be clearer about the
>>>>                     inheritance that we’re discussing:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                       * A)  All Marks are Symbolic Objects
>>>>                       * B) All Linguistic Objects are Symbolic Objects
>>>>                       * C) All Inscriptions are Linguistic Objects
>>>>                       * D) All Inscriptions are Marks
>>>>                       * E) No Marks which are not also Inscriptions
>>>>                         are Linguistic Objects
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     I believe the question is whether the last two
>>>>                     assertions above are accurate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     For D, I would argue that the Balliol sign is
>>>>                     not a Mark, as the symbolic content is not
>>>>                     related to the intents given in the scope note,
>>>>                     and thus either the scope note should be
>>>>                     changed to remove the intents and be clearer
>>>>                     about the nature of the class, or Inscription
>>>>                     should not be a subclass of Mark.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     For E, I would argue that if “short text” is
>>>>                     included in the scope for the Mark class, then
>>>>                     there must be some Marks that are Linguistic
>>>>                     Objects as short text implies that the symbols
>>>>                     encode some natural language. I think that the
>>>>                     scope note should be changed to remove “short
>>>>                     text” to avoid this issue. Marks should be
>>>>                     explicitly NOT text and only symbols, and if
>>>>                     there is a linguistic interpretation of the
>>>>                     content, then they should instead be Inscriptions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     Hope that clarifies!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     *From: *Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr
>>>>                     <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>>
>>>>                     *Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 10:35 AM
>>>>                     *To: *Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu
>>>>                     <mailto:RSanderson at getty.edu>>, crm-sig
>>>>                     <Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>>>                     <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>>
>>>>                     *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of
>>>>                     E37 Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     Dear Robert,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     Yes, that is a good question!
>>>>
>>>>                     For a very long time, we had no feedback to
>>>>                     this part f the CRM.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     Be careful not to inherit things upstream. If a
>>>>                     Mark is also a Linguistic Object, then it is in
>>>>                     particular an Inscription.
>>>>
>>>>                     But a Mark needs not be an Inscriptions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     However, we must take care that the
>>>>                     "non-Inscription marks" are not separated out
>>>>                     as complement, because following all the
>>>>                     discussions we had in the past, there are
>>>>                     enough marks cannot be clearly distinguished
>>>>                     from inscriptions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     So, the scope not should admit the existence of
>>>>                     marks in this wider sense, which are not the
>>>>                     codified monograms etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     On 1/17/2020 6:47 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                         Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                         I’m happy with the changes (modulo one
>>>>                         typo, below), but would propose also that
>>>>                         there should be clarification about the
>>>>                         inclusion of “short texts” in a class that
>>>>                         does not inherit from Linguistic Object. It
>>>>                         seems strange to me that Mark would include
>>>>                         “Made by RS in 1780”, when that is clearly
>>>>                         text with a language. That would, IMO, need
>>>>                         to be E37 Inscription if we wanted to talk
>>>>                         about the content / meaning, rather than
>>>>                         just the visual appearance of some symbols.
>>>>                         Yet the scope note for Mark makes
>>>>                         assertions about the intent, which implies
>>>>                         a semantic understanding of the language
>>>>                         encoded by the symbols.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                         Relatedly … as Inscription is a subclass of
>>>>                         Mark, that means that all inscriptions are
>>>>                         also Marks, and thus all inscriptions are
>>>>                         to indicate the creator, owner,
>>>>                         dedications, purpose etc. Either the “etc”
>>>>                         covers all intents (at which point it is a
>>>>                         worthless clause) or there are some texts
>>>>                         that are inscribed on objects that do not
>>>>                         count as inscriptions.
>>>>
>>>>                         One of the examples for Inscription is
>>>>                         “Kilroy was here” … that does not seem to
>>>>                         fall under the definition of Mark, given
>>>>                         the intent clause. Similarly the “Keep off
>>>>                         the grass” sign example is to instruct the
>>>>                         students of Balliol to not walk on the
>>>>                         lawn. That seems very different from a Mark
>>>>                         … yet it is one?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                         Finally, I think there is a minor typo in
>>>>                         the new sentence. I think it should read: …
>>>>                         as they are used to codify the marks in
>>>>                         reference documents …
>>>>
>>>>                         (or something like that)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                         Many thanks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                         Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                         *From: *Crm-sig
>>>>                         <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>                         <mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on
>>>>                         behalf of Martin Doerr
>>>>                         <martin at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>                         <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>                         *Date: *Friday, January 17, 2020 at 8:25 AM
>>>>                         *To: *crm-sig <Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>                         <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>                         *Subject: *[Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scope note of
>>>>                         E37 Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                         Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>                         There were questions about the level of
>>>>                         abstraction of E37 Mark. Therefore I
>>>>                         rewrite, following the relevant discussions
>>>>                         when this class was defined. The argument
>>>>                         was that it should directly link to the
>>>>                         codes that are used in museum documentation
>>>>                         for (registered) marks.
>>>>
>>>>                         *Old scope note:*
>>>>
>>>>                         Scope note: This class comprises symbols,
>>>>                         signs, signatures or short texts applied to
>>>>                         instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
>>>>                         by arbitrary techniques in order to
>>>>                         indicate the creator, owner, dedications,
>>>>                         purpose, etc.
>>>>
>>>>                          This class specifically excludes features
>>>>                         that have no semantic significance, such as
>>>>                         scratches or tool marks. These should be
>>>>                         documented as instances of E25 Human-Made
>>>>                         Feature.
>>>>
>>>>                         *NEW*
>>>>
>>>>                         Scope note: This class comprises symbols,
>>>>                         signs, signatures or short texts applied to
>>>>                         instances of E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
>>>>                         by arbitrary techniques in order to
>>>>                         indicate the creator, owner, dedications,
>>>>                         purpose, etc. Instances of E37 Mark do not
>>>>                         represent the actual image of a mark, but
>>>>                         the abstract ideal, as they use to be
>>>>                         codified in reference documents that are
>>>>                         used in cultural documentation.
>>>>
>>>>                          This class specifically excludes features
>>>>                         that have no semantic significance, such as
>>>>                         scratches or tool marks. These should be
>>>>                         documented as instances of E25 Human-Made
>>>>                         Feature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                         Can someone provide a relevant example from
>>>>                         an authority document of marks?
>>>>
>>>>                         Such as
>>>>
>>>>                         Castagno, John. /Old Masters: Signatures
>>>>                         and Monograms, 1400–Born 1800/. Lanham, MD:
>>>>                         Scarecrow Press, 1996.
>>>>
>>>>                         Caplan, H. H. and Bob Creps. /Encyclopedia
>>>>                         of Artists' Signatures, Symbols &
>>>>                         Monograms: Old Masters to Modern, North
>>>>                         American & European plus More; 25,000
>>>>                         Examples/. Land O'Lakes, FL: Dealer's
>>>>                         Choice Books, 1999.
>>>>
>>>>                         -- 
>>>>
>>>>                         ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>                         Dr. Martin Doerr
>>>>
>>>>                          Honorary Head of the
>>>>
>>>>                          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
>>>>
>>>>                          Vox:+30(2810)391625
>>>>
>>>>                          Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
>>>>                         <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>
>>>>                          Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                         	
>>>>
>>>>                         *CAUTION: This email originated from
>>>>                         outside of the Getty. Do not click links or
>>>>                         open attachments unless you verify the
>>>>                         sender and know the content is safe.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     -- 
>>>>
>>>>                     ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>                     Dr. Martin Doerr
>>>>
>>>>                      Honorary Head of the
>>>>
>>>>                      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
>>>>
>>>>                      Vox:+30(2810)391625
>>>>
>>>>                      Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
>>>>                     <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>
>>>>                      Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     	
>>>>
>>>>                     *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of
>>>>                     the Getty. Do not click links or open
>>>>                     attachments unless you verify the sender and
>>>>                     know the content is safe.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     _______________________________________________
>>>>                     Crm-sig mailing list
>>>>                     Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>                     http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>>
>>>>                 _______________________________________________
>>>>                 Crm-sig mailing list
>>>>                 Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>                 http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>             Crm-sig mailing list
>>>>
>>>>             Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>
>>>>             http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         -- 
>>>>
>>>>         ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>         Dr. Martin Doerr
>>>>
>>>>          Honorary Head of the
>>>>
>>>>          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
>>>>
>>>>          Vox:+30(2810)391625
>>>>
>>>>          Email: martin at ics.forth.gr <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>
>>>>          Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>         Crm-sig mailing list
>>>>
>>>>         Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr  <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>
>>>>         http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     -- 
>>>>
>>>>     ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>       Dr. Martin Doerr
>>>>
>>>>                    
>>>>
>>>>       Honorary Head of the
>>>>
>>>>       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
>>>>
>>>>       
>>>>
>>>>       Vox:+30(2810)391625
>>>>
>>>>       Email:martin at ics.forth.gr  <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>   
>>>>
>>>>       Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl  
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     	
>>>>
>>>>     *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do
>>>>     not click links or open attachments unless you verify the
>>>>     sender and know the content is safe.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     Crm-sig mailing list
>>>>     Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>     http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------
>>   Dr. Martin Doerr
>>                
>>   Honorary Head of the
>>   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
>>   
>>   Vox:+30(2810)391625
>>   Email:martin at ics.forth.gr   
>>   Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>

-- 
------------------------------------
  Dr. Martin Doerr
               
  Honorary Head of the
  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
  
  Vox:+30(2810)391625
  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
  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/20200121/000d86cc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list