[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