[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Overview of standards.

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Sat Oct 16 20:16:29 EEST 2021


Dear Robert,

This are good points. I believe such overview information should appear 
on the CRM site, however, someone needs to maintain and update.

WRT technical implementation, per default CRM-SIG provides RDFS. OWL is 
more powerful, but implementers must be careful not to impose 
constraints that come in conflict with more rare exceptions and the need 
to accommodate mutually contradictory alternatives of historical facts.

The idea is further that even Relation databases can implement an 
effective management of CRM instances, if data entry control software 
checks consistent use of entity types and relation types, which 
represent classes and properties. In the past, we have seen such 
implementations.

Some implementations may implement only small parts of the CRM.

LIDO is regarded to be an XML implementation with a loss-free mapping to 
the CRM in RDFS or OWL, and as such compatible, and promoted by CIDOC. I 
think there are enough systems around of this kind. Of course, they 
cannot be queried by superproperties, possibly some properties and 
classes are parametrized as types, which creates the needs again to 
control consistency between both.

We at FORTH have implemented such systems in XML.

About who uses what, and what is the S/W, I think we need a questionnaire.

About relevant standards, I think we need a questionnaire.

Both I think is part of this issue. Relevance needs to be defined: 
content size? subject coverage? expressive power?. Also, archives and 
libraries keep cultural materials and use their standards in quite 
different ways.

In 2009, I wrote a chapter for the Ontology Handbook 
https://dblp.org/db/series/ihis/hoo2009.html

Best,

Martin

On 10/15/2021 4:50 PM, Nasarek, Robert via Crm-sig wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> My name is Robert Nasarek and as an employee of the Germanisches 
> Nationalmuseum I am part of the consortium NFDI4Culture inside the 
> German National Research Data Infrastructure. Out of this context, a 
> few questions or needs arose that may be answered by the SIG community:
>
> 1) CIDOC CRM needs a technical implementation (like the Erlangen-CRM 
> <http://erlangen-crm.org/> in OWL) for computer aided processing, do 
> you use other implementations (XML etc.)?
>
> 2) There is a need for a comparative overview of all relevant 
> (de-facto) standards in the cultural sector with advantages and 
> disadvantages, peculiarities, weaknesses, and strengths. Which 
> standards are relevant and why?
>
> 3) Also, an overview of standards-based software would be useful 
> (WissKI, Omeka S, ResearchSpace, WikiMedia...), also with advantages 
> and disadvantages etc. Which software do you use and why?
>
> Maybe some of you can help me answer these questions and feel like 
> having a short meeting to discuss these things?
>
> Just drop me a line and depending on the response, I'll organize a 
> suitable format (the results will be shared). I would be very pleased!
>
> With kind regards
>
> Robert Nasarek
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20211016/da42e75f/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list