[Crm-sig] Modelling 'Transcription' Advice?

athinak athinak at ics.forth.gr
Tue Jul 20 13:14:19 EEST 2021


Dear George

the simplest solution I have used for very basic cases, such as, I want 
to assign the transcribed content (without identifying A) to B was: B 
(E73 Information Object or E33): P3 has note.P3.1 has 
type:"transcription" and the string is the content note. This is the 
content. However this doesn't work if you need to have A as an instance 
with identity (you use other paths in that case, as you mentioned)

BRs
Athina

Στις 2021-07-20 12:38, George Bruseker via Crm-sig έγραψε:
> Dear all,
> 
> Just a general question to the crowd.
> 
> Sometimes one has transcribed data of a very simple form.
> 
> A is supposed to represent B and it has been copied by someone with
> the intention of so doing.
> 
> A is a transcription of B
> 
> A [E33] is a transcription of B [E33]
> 
> This could be modelled numerous ways using CIDOC CRM. If one is
> looking for the most direct/binary way, I suppose that the only choice
> is "p130 shows features of". If you wanted to capture the mode of
> relation then you would use p130.1 has type and indicate
> 'transcription'.
> 
> I notice, however, that we do have 'has translation' as a sub property
> of P130 shows features of, as an apparently useful to the community
> binary property specializing P130 to that specific scenario.
> 
> Has anyone else done modelling of transcriptions before with the aim
> of not recording the event but only the binary relation and if so, did
> you come up with any interesting solutions?
> 
> A property would be handy in case anyone has created and published a
> specialization that could just be reused?
> 
> Thanks for any insight! Maybe I miss an obvious trick from LRM?
> 
> All the best,
> 
> George
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list