[Crm-sig] Issue 419: Activity plans

Francesco Beretta francesco.beretta at cnrs.fr
Thu Jun 10 09:41:19 EEST 2021


Dear Achille, Thanasis, all

In my opinion, your discussion raises two questions, a specific and a 
general one.


The specific:

In which part of the CRM family is it better to have the activity plans 
? You have good arguments for the third option proposed by Thanasis – 
waiting since years with this unsolved issue. This would suggest to move 
on.


The general:

But one could also argue that the domain of the CRMbase is "information 
exchange and integration between heterogeneous sources of cultural 
heritage information", that activity plans as intended by Thanasis 
belong precisely to this domain, and therefore there's no need to add 
another extension. Because if you model this domain, you do not model 
activity plans in the generic sense of social life, e.g. having the plan 
to rob a bank (CRMsoc), nor plans of how to digitize things (CRMdig), 
but a rescue plan for museum objects in case of flood.

Not that I want to contradict you with this, but just raise once again 
the general question: shouldn't we have an in-depth discussion on the 
articulation of CRMbase and all its extensions, the mutual relations 
between them and their stricter specification, including explicit and 
visible indications of reference versions for each of them and minimal 
number of classes and propertes from CRMbase that should be there? so 
that these complex relationships are not only visible to informed 
specialists but to the entire community that wishes to use the model?

I try to figure out where this issue is expressed among the issues, 
there was a discussion in Cologne and we should have proposed to work on 
this under the lead of Christian Emil, if I remember well, about a core 
or similar, but I cannot find it now. And probably the discussion is 
ongoing, or solved, and I'm unaware of it.

But I think there is a real need for methodological clarification to 
avoid a growing community of users being confused by this already 
complex universe of extensions. And that it is more clearly visible 
where this issue is solved, if it is the case.

All the best

Francesco





Le 09.06.21 à 09:29, Achille Felicetti via Crm-sig a écrit :
> Dear Thanasis,
>
> I also tend to be in favour of your option 3 because in my opinion, the planning problem is transversal and concerns many disciplines and many areas, not just the social one. Recently, I have been working on the modeling of laboratory analyses, their preventive planning and the related definition of research protocols that require this type of approach.
>
> But the same kind of planning is required, for example, for the preparation and 3D digitisation of objects and monuments in archeology and for many other similar activities.
>
> I think that having an extension dedicated exclusively to this topic could have a general value and usefulness for many researchers and I would naturally be very happy if you could coordinate its development.
>
> Ciao,
> Achille
>
>> Il giorno 8 giu 2021, alle ore 22:14, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> ha scritto:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> During discussions on the future of activity plans it appears that we have 3 options:
>>
>> 1) Activity plans to remain as part of CRMsoc. This makes sense since obeying laws and receiving penalties take place in societies and such things appear to match the model for activity plans. However, they are not central to the current CRMsoc discourse.
>>
>> 2) Activity plans to move to CRMbase. This makes sense given that Purchase is in core and there is an increasing amount of interest in business transactions, but again perhaps not central enough to the CRMbase focus.
>>
>> 3) Activity plans to become its own extension. This makes sense as it is a construct focussing on possible future events rather than past events mainly concerning the CRM and its extensions otherwise. Also it being a separate extension could create a space for business transactions.
>>
>> I support option 3 and I would like us to discuss this at the next SIG meeting and decide. I am happy to act as the maintainer of such an extension.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Thanasis
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20210610/54f9caab/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list