[Crm-sig] CALL FOR E-VOTE ISSUE 581

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Mar 1 18:14:00 EET 2022


Hi George,

May be you live in a different world, or make things artificially 
complex for the sake of providing absolute answers, which do not exist.

The CRM method requires research questions.

My implicit research question is simple: How do I prove that I am 
married? Please don't tell me by observation😁.

Just tell me how that works. For this question, for this kind of bond, 
in Europe today. Please answer explicitly.

Then we can discuss, if the distinction I made is practical, common 
sense and useful for this question or not.

Best,

Martin

On 3/1/2022 4:41 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Social symbolic events such as acquisitions (not done by force) are 
> also strictly not observable since you can only know that they occur 
> if you share the same social symbolic set and 'conclude' or 'infer' 
> that something has taken place. There is no atomic level at which we 
> see these things and can then say 'and now it is done'! Which atom, at 
> what moment? Of course there are various pieces of evidence you can go 
> looking for and say these are the things you must observe, but it's an 
> obtuse way of looking at things because if you are at the wedding and 
> you are a literate member of the cultural group then you know (barring 
> an evil demon) that when the bride has been kissed (and some books 
> signed) that the event has occured. You 'observed' it.
>
> It is reasonable and natural for how to structure information and how 
> to ask questions to posit an observation acquisition event rather than 
> saying that what is observable is the book, the handshake etc.
>
> This is the same with social institutions. No document need be 
> consulted for an alien anthropologist to land amongst CRM SIG 
> discussion and determine who the leader is. Having read a few 
> background documents about general human culture and observing a set 
> of behaviours amongst a group of people the anthropologist 'observes' 
> M Doerr to be the leader. To say that this is not observable is 
> extremely hard to support (except again if we argue only atomic 
> configurations can be observed). What was observed is not necessarily 
> initiating and ending events (also symbolic, also only knowable beyond 
> physical material evidence), but a number of indicators within a 
> social symbolic system which indicated this to be the case.
>
> It is thus equally natural to say that the social fact is observed 
> although in fact many minute individual observations were made etc. It 
> would be obtuse to ask for these to be listed instead of the fact in 
> the same way it would be for the event because this is not the form of 
> evidence that is typically required in the domain on inquiry.
>
> Francesco points out for the nth time and I'm not sure why this cannot 
> be heard or acknowledge that historians usually do not have the kind 
> of evidence you ask for of physical events in space and time that 
> start social states. The historian is not at fault, the historical 
> record is imperfect. It is in this case not for the historian to 
> change his practice but for the ontologist to provide a structure 
> which relates to the kind of reality that the expert tries to describe.
>
> As in observation in the sense of physics, the observer can be wrong.
>
> Best,
>
> George
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:49 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
> <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> wrote:
>
>     Dear Francesco,
>
>     May I object. I maintain that ownership is not observable. All
>     examples you provided are about memories or documents of
>     acquisition, or about those who claim to know those (who know/have
>     known those) who know. The events of acquisition, in whatever
>     form, are the only one that are observable. This does not require
>     a higher conceptual consideration in the first place. Without
>     counterexample, I cannot follow your criticism.
>
>     All the best,
>
>     Martin
>
>     On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
>>
>>     Dear Athina,
>>
>>     Thank you for taking of your time and for making explicit the
>>     reasons of your modelling choices and methodology.
>>
>>     As University trained historians, we know that the model of the
>>     information produced by a project generally depends on the
>>     research agenda and the available sources. The model of a project
>>     is therefore not an ontology in the sense of a conceptualisation
>>     allowing for multi-project interoperability. Even the way of
>>     modelling a ship's voyage may change according to the lines of
>>     inquiry of different research projects. For this reason, a strict
>>     bottom-up modelling methodology in the field of historical
>>     research, and more broadly in the social sciences, without
>>     foundational analysis, doesn't seem to be the most appropriate
>>     way of producing an ontology for the whole portion of reality —a
>>     quite relevant portion in the cultural heritage perspective—
>>     these disciplines are concerned with.
>>
>>     Regarding the ownership of a ship
>>     (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-owner), which in French is in
>>     some contexts referred to under the technical term 'armement'
>>     (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armement_(marine) — cf.
>>     "registration activity" below), thesocial fact of ownership is as
>>     such and in general —in the sense of ontology— observable. One
>>     can ask sailors or informed contemporaries and they will know who
>>     the owner of the ship is. There are historical sources, for
>>     example correspondence, which attest to the role of shipowners
>>     (/armateurs/) of such and such a person or company, even if we
>>     have lost the shipping registers which state the events of taking
>>     ownership.
>>
>>     In the Sealit project, a methodological choice or stance was
>>     adopted which is certainly legitimate in the project's context,
>>     but which one should avoid to generalize stating e.g. that ship
>>     ownership is not directly observable, as this would be in
>>     contradiction with observable reality. Besides the collective,
>>     attested and observable knowledge of ownership, there are, for
>>     other subdomains, written statements about it. One has to think
>>     of the land registry documents
>>     (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadastre) which often attest to
>>     the social fact of land ownership, or other rights on land,
>>     without necessarily knowing where it comes from. These rights are
>>     observable and part of reality as evidenced by the recent trials
>>     and convictions of climate activists who have occupied and
>>     organised unauthorised events at the headquarters of private
>>     companies, on the basis of infringement of private property.
>>
>>     So should one intend that social bonds, ownership, etc. are —in
>>     general and as such— not observable does not seem to be very
>>     prudent because the fact of generalising a specific method of
>>     modelling whose foundation and epistemological principles have
>>     never really been made explicit (in their foundational,
>>     philosophical aspects) risks compromising the possibility of
>>     adopting such an ontology by entire scientific communities, such
>>     as the social sciences, historical sciences, etc., whose objects
>>     are precisely related the social facts and immaterial cultural
>>     heritage.
>>
>>     I am therefore not at all criticizing  the modelling choices of
>>     the Sealit project, which are entirely legitimate in the context
>>     of the project's model. I would simply caution against implicitly
>>     accepting foundational and philosophical modelling principles,
>>     such as those we are called to vote on —e.g. the reference to
>>     "empirical material evidence" in the context of an ontology (the
>>     CRM) that "only commits to a unique _material_ reality
>>     independent from the observer"— regarding issues that appear to
>>     be merely about innocuous wording, and by far are not, and should
>>     actually be once explicitly formulated, discussed and accepted.
>>
>>     It is in this sense that I understand this question, as well as
>>     the one raised in issue 581, to fall under issues 504 and 580.
>>
>>     Hoping to have answered your question in this way, with my best
>>     regards
>>
>>     Francesco
>>
>>
>>     ----
>>
>>     Dr. habil. Francesco Beretta
>>
>>     Chargé de recherche au CNRS,
>>     Chargé d'enseignement à l'Université de Neuchâtel
>>
>>     Axe de recherche en histoire numérique,
>>     Laboratoire de recherche historique Rhône-Alpes
>>
>>     LARHRA UMR CNRS 5190,
>>     MSH LSE,
>>     14, Avenue Berthelot
>>     69363 LYON CEDEX 07
>>
>>
>>     Publications
>>     <https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/search/index/?qa[auth_t][]=Francesco+Beretta&sort=producedDate_tdate+desc>
>>     Le projet dataforhistory.org <http://dataforhistory.org/> –
>>     Ontology Management Environment OntoME
>>     <http://ontome.dataforhistory.org/>
>>     Projet "FAIR data" en histoire
>>     <http://phn-wiki.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/doku.php?id=fairdata:accueil>
>>
>>     L’Axe de recherche en histoire numérique
>>     <http://larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/pole-histoire-numerique> du LARHRA
>>     Le projet symogih.org <http://symogih.org/>– SPARQL endpoint
>>     <http://symogih.org/?q=rdf-publication>
>>     Portail de ressources géo-historiques GEO-LARHRA
>>     <http://geo-larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/>
>>     Portail de ressources textuelles
>>     <http://xml-portal.symogih.org/index.html> au format XML
>>     Cours Outils numériques pour les sciences historiques
>>     <http://phn-wiki.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/doku.php?id=intro_histoire_numerique:accueil>
>>     Dépôt GitHub avec documentation des cours et travaux
>>     d’étudiant-e-s <https://github.com/Sciences-historiques-numeriques>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Le 28.02.22 à 11:25, athinak a écrit :
>>>     Dear Francesco, dear all,
>>>
>>>     There may be a misunderstanding regarding the class Legal Object
>>>     Relationship, which I explained in the presentation in the last
>>>     sig meeting: We defined this class in a sense of a state of
>>>     ownership of a ship, which is a kind of information that can be
>>>     inferred (implicit knowledge) and not directly observed – it can
>>>     be observed by the starting and terminating event of this state.
>>>     It is like the soc Bond, which describes social/legal
>>>     relationships that cannot be observed.
>>>     We strictly follow the modelling principle which refers that we
>>>     model from actual information sources that reveal actual
>>>     practice- according to the historians of the sealit project, a
>>>     ship ownership phase is described as a state with the only
>>>     information documented to be about the ship owner, the shares
>>>     that may have and the name of the ship, not the dates of this
>>>     ownership (which is a quite complex phenomenon to observe since
>>>     a person e.g may possess up to 1/48 of a ship, so you can
>>>     understand how many ships shares a single person could have in
>>>     the same time and there is no documented information on the
>>>     timespan of this shareholding. Additionally, the ownership is
>>>     used to assign a name to a ship and a ship changes its name
>>>     under an ownership state. However, additional temporal
>>>     information on these names under ownership states is not
>>>     documented in the source – the Ownership phase can be traced by
>>>     the ship registration activity (that includes timespan
>>>     information) that initiates it and by the de-flagging, both
>>>     events that are documented. This is material evidence, coming
>>>     from the source.  If you open a Loyd catalogue, you will find
>>>     these information under ship registration without dates on the
>>>     owners of the ship.
>>>     Another modeling principle that is represented in our decision
>>>     to leave Legal Object Relationship as a subclass of E1 CRM
>>>     Entity is that we support the progressive improvement of
>>>     classification knowledge by IsA hierarchy. Since we don’t have
>>>     enough knowledge and we support the open world assumption, which
>>>     means that new evidence may change the classification, we prefer
>>>     to model the more general (here we classified under E1) and
>>>     then, when we have more precise knowledge by instances on the
>>>     nature of this Legal Ob.Relationship class, then we can
>>>     progressively specialize and refine the E1 and find the
>>>     superclass under which Legal Object Relationship fits.
>>>     Sealit is a model that is based on data input, it can be refined
>>>     and improved based on new knowledge, new instances.
>>>     I just wanted to explain this logic under which the model was
>>>     constructed and to prove that it is one of the most
>>>     representative documentations from material evidence we had, in
>>>     our experience. So I am a bit confused how this use case
>>>     supports raising philosophical questions regarding issue 581.
>>>
>>>     My BRs,
>>>     Athina
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 2022-02-25 12:29, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
>>>>     Dear Martin, dear Franco,
>>>>
>>>>     I assume that the same question by Franco (Issue 581) is raised by
>>>>     page 25 ?
>>>>
>>>>     " What goes on in our minds or is produced by our minds is also
>>>>     regarded as part of the material reality, as it becomes materially
>>>>     evident to other people at least by our utterances, behavior and
>>>>     products. "
>>>>
>>>>     " priority of integrating information based on material evidence
>>>>     available for whatever human experience."
>>>>
>>>>     " The CIDOC CRM only commits to a unique material reality
>>>>     independent
>>>>     from the observer."
>>>>
>>>>     Cf. the new proposition below:
>>>>
>>>>     " As “available documented and empirical material evidence” are
>>>>     regarded all types of material collected and displayed by
>>>>     museums and
>>>>     related institutions, as defined by ICOM[1], and other 
>>>>     collections of
>>>>     things providing evidence about the past, in-situ objects, sites,
>>>>     monuments and intangible heritage relating to fields such as
>>>>     social
>>>>     history, ethnography, archaeology, fine and applied arts, natural
>>>>     history, history of sciences and technology. "
>>>>
>>>>     It seems to me that these 'fussy' questions raise in fact, once
>>>>     again,
>>>>     the relevant Issue 504 concerning the philosophical
>>>>     underpinnings of
>>>>     CRM.
>>>>
>>>>     The consequences of this approach are illustrated by the recently
>>>>     published Sealit project ontology, class: Legal Object
>>>>     Relationship
>>>>     (e.g. property of a ship by some actor): "This class comprises
>>>>     legal
>>>>     object relationships of which the timespan and the state (of these
>>>>     relationships) cannot be observed or documented. We can only
>>>>     observe
>>>>     these relationships through the events that initialize or
>>>>     terminate
>>>>     this state of relationship (starting event and terminating
>>>>     event). "
>>>>
>>>>     I'm not sure how many domain experts would agree with this
>>>>     definition
>>>>     because ownership of things, as a fact, is attested in written
>>>>     texts,
>>>>     or even in minds of living persons and expressed in utterances,
>>>>     and
>>>>     these are empirically observable.
>>>>
>>>>     The here adopted foundational stance excludes this fact (i.e.
>>>>     property) from being a subclass of E2 Temporal Entity.  Legal
>>>>     Object
>>>>     Relationship is declared as subclass of E1 Entity.
>>>>
>>>>     But on page 33 of the CRM documentation we can read: "The more
>>>>     specific subclasses of E2 Temporal Entity enable the
>>>>     documentation of
>>>>     events pertaining to individually related/affected material,
>>>>     social or
>>>>     mental objects that have been described using subclasses of E77
>>>>     Persistent Item. "
>>>>
>>>>     I must therefore admit that a careful reader is somewhat
>>>>     confused and
>>>>     that having an extension, such as CRMsoc, providing additional
>>>>     classes
>>>>     to deal with individual intentional and social life, and
>>>>     dealing with
>>>>     mental and social facts as empirically observable, intentional
>>>>     (collective) facts as we propose, could only be an advantage.
>>>>
>>>>     This email therefore relates to issues 504 and 580. I'd kindly
>>>>     ask to
>>>>     put it there and add there links to the relevant other issues.
>>>>
>>>>     All the best
>>>>
>>>>     Francesco
>>>>
>>>>     On 14.02.22 20:38, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     Dear All
>>>>>
>>>>>     Please vote "YES" for accept, "NO" for not accept:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Background
>>>>>
>>>>>     Proposal by Franco Niccolucci (9 January 2022)
>>>>>     With other colleagues, I am translating into Italian the CIDOC
>>>>>     CRM
>>>>>     documentation. This forced me to (or if you prefer, it gave me
>>>>>     the
>>>>>     opportunity of) reading it with great attention to minute
>>>>>     details.
>>>>>     On page 10 of the Introduction I found a couple of things that
>>>>>     may
>>>>>     need to be changed: both are in the bottom of the page describing
>>>>>     the CRM Intended Scope, where some expressions used in such
>>>>>     description are explained in greater detail.
>>>>>     1. In the first bullet point, the term “scientific and scholarly
>>>>>     documentation” is explained as compliant to the quality level
>>>>>     “expected and required by museum professionals and researchers in
>>>>>     the field.” What about archaeologists, architectural historians
>>>>>     etc.? I would replace this statement with “expected and required
>>>>>     by heritage professionals and researchers in the field.”, which
>>>>>     would also expand the “field” beyond museology as implied by the
>>>>>     other formulation, which is also contradictory with the much
>>>>>     wider
>>>>>     ambit listed in the second bullet.
>>>>>     2. In the second bullet point the meaning of the term “available
>>>>>     documented and material evidence” is explained. Actually, a
>>>>>     different expression was used in the previous text, being
>>>>>     clarified
>>>>>     here; “available documented and empirical evidence”. When
>>>>>     defining a term, I think it is preferable to avoid using
>>>>>     different
>>>>>     albeit equivalent expressions. Moreover, the equivalence of
>>>>>     “empirical” and “material” is debatable: according to my
>>>>>     Oxford dictionary
>>>>>     empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by
>>>>>     observation
>>>>>     or experience rather than theory or pure logic
>>>>>
>>>>>     material = denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than
>>>>>     the mind or spirit
>>>>>     I may agree with “empirical” but I am not sure I would agree
>>>>>     with “material”.
>>>>>     As you can see, this is a fussy comment. But the devil is in the
>>>>>     details... and in this case a naughty commenter (not my case)
>>>>>     might
>>>>>     think that both are Freudian slips :)
>>>>>     3. In the third and fourth bullet points, collections are
>>>>>     addressed.
>>>>>     But the third point considers “cultural heritage collections”
>>>>>     and the fourth “museum collections”, actually in the same
>>>>>     copy-paste sentence. Is this difference intentional, or again a
>>>>>     slip? I imagine in both cases “cultural heritage collections”
>>>>>     must be used.
>>>>>
>>>>>     -------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>     PROPOSAL:
>>>>>
>>>>>     OLD:
>>>>>
>>>>>     SCOPE OF THE CIDOC CRM
>>>>>
>>>>>     The overall scope of the CIDOC CRM can be summarised in simple
>>>>>     terms
>>>>>     as the curated, factual knowledge about the past at a human
>>>>>     scale.
>>>>>
>>>>>     However, a more detailed and useful definition can be
>>>>>     articulated by
>>>>>     defining both the Intended Scope, a broad and maximally-inclusive
>>>>>     definition of general application principles, and the Practical
>>>>>     Scope, which is expressed by the overall scope of a growing
>>>>>     reference set of specific, identifiable documentation
>>>>>     standards and
>>>>>     practices that the CIDOC CRM aims to semantically describe,
>>>>>     restricted, always, in its details to the limitations of the
>>>>>     Intended Scope.
>>>>>
>>>>>     The reasons for this distinctions between Intended and Practical
>>>>>     Scope are twofold. Firstly, the CIDOC CRM is developed in a
>>>>>     “bottom-up” manner, starting from well-understood, actually and
>>>>>     widely used concepts of domain experts, which are
>>>>>     disambiguated and
>>>>>     gradually generalized as more forms of encoding are encountered.
>>>>>     This aims to avoid the misadaptations and vagueness that can
>>>>>     sometimes be found in introspection-driven attempts to find
>>>>>     overarching concepts for such a wide scope, and provides
>>>>>     stability
>>>>>     to the generalizations found. Secondly, it is a means to identify
>>>>>     and keep a focus on the concepts most needed by the communities
>>>>>     working in the scope of the CIDOC CRM and to maintain a
>>>>>     well-defined
>>>>>     agenda for its evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>     The Intended Scope of the CIDOC CRM may, therefore, be defined as
>>>>>     all information required for the exchange and integration of
>>>>>     heterogeneous scientific and scholarly documentation about the
>>>>>     past
>>>>>     at a human scale and the available documented and empirical
>>>>>     evidence
>>>>>     for this. This definition requires further elaboration:
>>>>>
>>>>>     ·    The term “scientific and scholarly documentation” is
>>>>>     intended to convey the requirement that the depth and quality of
>>>>>     descriptive information that can be handled by the CIDOC CRM
>>>>>     should
>>>>>     be sufficient for serious academic research. This does not
>>>>>     mean that
>>>>>     information intended for presentation to members of the general
>>>>>     public is excluded, but rather that the CRM is intended to
>>>>>     provide
>>>>>     the level of detail and precision expected and required by
>>>>>     heritage
>>>>>     professionals and researchers in the field.
>>>>>
>>>>>     ·    As “available documented and material evidence” are
>>>>>     regarded all types of material collected and displayed by museums
>>>>>     and related institutions, as defined by ICOM[1], and other
>>>>>     collections, in-situ objects, sites, monuments and intangible
>>>>>     heritage relating to fields such as social history, ethnography,
>>>>>     archaeology, fine and applied arts, natural history, history of
>>>>>     sciences and technology.
>>>>>
>>>>>     ·    The concept “documentation” includes the detailed
>>>>>     description of individual items, in situ or within collections,
>>>>>     groups of items and collections as a whole, as well as
>>>>>     practices of
>>>>>     intangible heritage. It pertains to their current state as
>>>>>     well as
>>>>>     to information about their past. The CIDOC CRM is specifically
>>>>>     intended to cover contextual information: the historical,
>>>>>     geographical and theoretical background that gives cultural
>>>>>     heritage
>>>>>     collections much of their cultural significance and value.
>>>>>
>>>>>     ·    The documentation of collections includes the detailed
>>>>>     description of individual items within collections, groups of
>>>>>     items
>>>>>     and collections as a whole. The CIDOC CRM is specifically
>>>>>     intended
>>>>>     to cover contextual information: the historical, geographical and
>>>>>     theoretical background that gives museum collections much of
>>>>>     their
>>>>>     cultural significance and value. NEW:
>>>>>
>>>>>     SCOPE OF THE CIDOC CRM
>>>>>
>>>>>     The overall scope of the CIDOC CRM can be summarised in simple
>>>>>     terms
>>>>>     as the curated, factual knowledge about the past at a human
>>>>>     scale.
>>>>>
>>>>>     However, a more detailed and useful definition can be
>>>>>     articulated by
>>>>>     defining both the Intended Scope, a broad and maximally-inclusive
>>>>>     definition of general application principles, and the Practical
>>>>>     Scope, which is expressed by the overall scope of a growing
>>>>>     reference set of specific, identifiable documentation
>>>>>     standards and
>>>>>     practices that the CIDOC CRM aims to semantically describe,
>>>>>     restricted, always, in its details to the limitations of the
>>>>>     Intended Scope.
>>>>>
>>>>>     The reasons for this distinctions between Intended and Practical
>>>>>     Scope are twofold. Firstly, the CIDOC CRM is developed in a
>>>>>     “bottom-up” manner, starting from well-understood, actually and
>>>>>     widely used concepts of domain experts, which are
>>>>>     disambiguated and
>>>>>     gradually generalized as more forms of encoding are encountered.
>>>>>     This aims to avoid the misadaptations and vagueness that can
>>>>>     sometimes be found in introspection-driven attempts to find
>>>>>     overarching concepts for such a wide scope, and provides
>>>>>     stability
>>>>>     to the generalizations found. Secondly, it is a means to identify
>>>>>     and keep a focus on the concepts most needed by the communities
>>>>>     working in the scope of the CIDOC CRM and to maintain a
>>>>>     well-defined
>>>>>     agenda for its evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>     The Intended Scope of the CIDOC CRM may, therefore, be defined as
>>>>>     all information required for the exchange and integration of
>>>>>     heterogeneous scientific and scholarly documentation about the
>>>>>     past
>>>>>     at a human scale and the available documented and empirical
>>>>>     evidence
>>>>>     for this. This definition requires further elaboration:
>>>>>
>>>>>     ·    The term “scientific and scholarly documentation” is
>>>>>     intended to convey the requirement that the depth and quality of
>>>>>     descriptive information that can be handled by the CIDOC CRM
>>>>>     should
>>>>>     be sufficient for serious academic research. This does not
>>>>>     mean that
>>>>>     information intended for presentation to members of the general
>>>>>     public is excluded, but rather that the CRM is intended to
>>>>>     provide
>>>>>     the level of detail and precision expected and required by
>>>>>     heritage
>>>>>     professionals engaged in  cultural and scientific heritage and
>>>>>     researchers in these fields.
>>>>>
>>>>>     ·    As “available documented and empirical material evidence”
>>>>>     are regarded all types of material collected and displayed by
>>>>>     museums and related institutions, as defined by ICOM[1], and
>>>>>     other
>>>>>     collections of things providing evidence about the past, in-situ
>>>>>     objects, sites, monuments and intangible heritage relating to
>>>>>     fields
>>>>>     such as social history, ethnography, archaeology, fine and
>>>>>     applied
>>>>>     arts, natural history, history of sciences and technology.
>>>>>
>>>>>     ·    The concept “documentation” includes the detailed
>>>>>     description of individual items, in situ or within collections,
>>>>>     groups of items and collections as a whole, as well as
>>>>>     practices of
>>>>>     intangible heritage. It pertains to their current state as
>>>>>     well as
>>>>>     to information about their past. The CIDOC CRM is specifically
>>>>>     intended to cover contextual information: the historical,
>>>>>     geographical and theoretical background that gives cultural
>>>>>     heritage
>>>>>     collections much of their cultural significance and value.
>>>>>
>>>>>     ·    Delete the fourth paragraph, it is repeating the third!
>>>>>
>>>>>     -------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>     [1] The ICOM Statutes provide a definition of the term “museum”
>>>>>     at http://icom.museum/statutes.html#2 The term “should” is used
>>>>>     in the sense of a binding recommendation by the standards.
>>>>>     This is
>>>>>     what users adhering to the standard have to do. It “should” be
>>>>>     consistently used throughout the document.
>>>>>
>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>     ------------------------------------
>>>>>     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
>>>>>
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     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
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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/20220301/b2dad746/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list