[Crm-sig] E-vote for issue 384 (template for family models)

Pat Riva pat.riva at concordia.ca
Tue Jun 22 17:42:33 EEST 2021


YES.

Have not yet applied it to LRMoo, but it should work.
I have a question about the list of external properties: in FRBRoo this list included the domains and ranges in the table. I have found that helpful. Is the format of the table perscriptive?

Pat


Pat Riva

Associate University Librarian, Collection Services (on leave)

Concordia University



Vanier Library (VL-301-61)

7141 Sherbrooke Street West

Montreal, QC H4B 1R6

Canada

pat.riva at concordia.ca<mailto:pat.riva at concordia.ca>

________________________________
From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Sent: June 21, 2021 4:51 PM
To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] E-vote for issue 384 (template for family models)


YES

Le 21.06.21 à 15:47, George Bruseker via Crm-sig a écrit :
YES

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:24 PM Øyvind Eide via Crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
YES

Am 18.06.2021 um 11:56 schrieb Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>>:


Dear all,

This issue is about agreeing a template based on which the specification documents of CRM family models will be produced. The working document for this issue is here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N09On4q4j4c8mIvSfMZTsWk-vsUIkdn2jRIzBlW8smU/edit?usp=sharing

The proposed template is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xWq1SIcoSNMmmwpO3TfE6LTC9cYsRapy/view?usp=sharing

The vote is to decide on whether to adopt the template document. The main change from the existing template is the inclusion of a table for class and property dependencies to allow clear references to other models without repeating material and while keeping track of different versions.

The possible votes are:

  *   Yes = accept/agree
  *   No = do not accept/agree
  *   Other = With other you can either introduce a caveat (e.g.: 'Yes, but there is a typo on word x, fix it.') or you can write VETO, if you wish to stop the proposal, in which case you should also write a justification and reformulate the issue (e.g.: 'VETO, this change is unacceptable because it violates the following principle...')

Please send your e-votes by the 28th of June.

All the best,

Thanasis

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20210622/3424e123/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list