[Crm-sig] Modelling 'Transcription' Advice?

Robert Sanderson azaroth42 at gmail.com
Thu Jul 22 16:59:15 EEST 2021

What about:

 A a E33_Linguistic_Object ;
  P94i_was_created_by Creation .
Creation a E65_Creation ;
  p2_has_type or p32_used_general_technique <aat:transcription> ;
  p16_used_specific_object B .


On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 5:58 AM George Bruseker via Crm-sig <
crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> wrote:

> 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

Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20210722/cb06a7ac/attachment.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list