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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Mar 3 19:41:52 EET 2022


Dear Francesco,

I fear no jurisdictional reality will support such undifferentiated 
positions, without analytical thought about who believes what, based on 
what, who would accept such believes with which consequences, and what 
kinds of thing you observe, and how this relates  to the ownership fact.

Steve, as well as I, do not present the term "observable" as an 
indisputable epistemic position.

We should finally understand that such e-mail exchanges cannot resolve 
background of years in a single message, and are therefore meaningless, 
if they expect absolute terms and self-consistence within a single message.

We should finally understand that the term "observable" and the 
substance of the observed we, Steve, Athina and me, apply, is itself a 
function of the particular research questions to be answered, as are 
*ALL *concepts in the CRM.

Any philosophical agreement on the general meaning of "observable" in 
has so far *failed*, as most globally valid definitions of human terms. 
Paul Feyerabend, in his last writings, expressed the opinion that 
fundamental human terms must be flexible enough in order to engulf new 
realities.

When Athina, Steve and me describe the ownership relation as not 
observable, your first question should *not *be questioning the 
prudence, but ask for what sense of "observation" we have applied. This 
sense, by the way, had publicly be discussed in CRM-SIG, I think in your 
presence and be well understood, I think, at that time.

The simple question, how someone in this society would prove his 
ownership of a ship, or being married, *would reveal *a lot of 
distinctions that are indisputably necessary for adequate modeling by 
formal ontologies based on binary logic.

Questioning the bottom-up method is even more counterproductive, because 
the actual sense of "social belief",  "observable fact" itself, 
consistent with the data and question to be answered can only be singled 
out on the base of bottom-up analysis, see, e.g., George Lakoff's 
excellent analysis of "my true mother".

Any suggestions that this my question ("how do you prove to be married") 
would be an expression of another simplistic assumption are quite 
counterproductive for the way CRM-SIG works. This question is *an 
invitation to a methodological exercise.**
*
My personal opinion is, if someone cannot go through at least one such 
an exercise in all its ramifications ("marriage witness", documents 
signed by, documents created based on witnessed documents, all documents 
lost and making claims credible, legislation changing, national archives 
preserving documents of witnessing legislation, acting like being 
married, distinguishing religious from secular authority), one can 
hardly claim doing generic modelling compatible with binary logic, i.e. 
with "formal" ontologies. Even then, "gray" fuzzy zones may remain, and 
need to be understood if they will affect seriously recall and 
precision. It is a time-consuming, exhausting and slow process, 
inconvenient for many, but at least the product has a reasonable 
long-term stability and continued extensibility.

The *sense* of "observability" presented by Steve, Athina and me is the 
one underlying the concept of being "marriage witness" or *being not*, 
as a social fact, *sufficiently robust* and accepted, in several 
relevant societies by their authorities and beyond. It is distinct from 
God being witness. It is distinct from observing an *expression of 
someones opinion, *and neither questions the latter, nor the way a 
historian would use such evidence in constructing a possible or likely 
past. It is no positivist threat against historical "inferences to the 
best explanation" from available evidence.

If other societies apply incommensurable concepts for such things, we 
would need again a careful analysis and understand the reasons. I remind 
for example David Graeber's very detailed analysis of obligation and the 
incompatibility of dowry with payments.

Anybody trying other intellectual methods is kindly invited to follow 
that and then show if it helps answering the respective research 
questions, to explain the data, and to produce the best automated 
inferences.

Best,

Martin

On 3/3/2022 12:32 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
>
> Dear Steve,
>
> I fear that it is reality, rather than me, that is the cause of your 
> trouble. "a statement that an instance of Actor at a particular point 
> in time expressed an opinion about the ownership of a vessel" is 
> precisely the observation of a social fact, i.e. the collective belief 
> (or disbelief) that this person is the owner of this ship. I fear that 
> there is no other substance of ownership, as of any other social fact, 
> that collective belief. And this is observable in human statements, be 
> they written down or just oral.
>
> I also fear that denying the status of observation to such an 
> observation is neither a bottom-up approach, nor the integration of 
> databases, nor anything else but an implicit epistemic position 
> presented as indisputable.
>
> Now, because what is indisputable is, by definition, not debatable, 
> I'll stop arguing.
>
> And take the opportunity to wish you a good day
>
> Francesco
>
>
> Le 01.03.22 à 14:25, Stephen Stead a écrit :
>>
>> Dear Francesco
>>
>> I find my self troubled by your contention that “One can ask sailors 
>> or informed contemporaries and they will know who the owner of the 
>> ship is”, is in some way an observation of ownership. At best, it is 
>> a statement that an instance of Actor at a particular point in time 
>> expressed an opinion about the ownership of a vessel. This may itself 
>> be of interest of course and may be part of the evidence that we use 
>> to make an estimation of ownership (where proper documentation is no 
>> longer available) but it is not an observation.
>>
>> Rgds
>>
>> SdS
>>
>> Stephen Stead
>>
>> Tel +44 20 8668 3075
>>
>> Mob +44 7802 755 013
>>
>> E-mail steads at paveprime.com <mailto:steads at paveprime.com>
>>
>> LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/ 
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/>
>>
>> *From:*Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> *On Behalf Of 
>> *Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig
>> *Sent:* 01 March 2022 09:47
>> *To:* athinak <athinak at ics.forth.gr>
>> *Cc:* crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>> *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] CALL FOR E-VOTE ISSUE 581
>>
>> 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), the_social 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%5bauth_t%5d%5b%5d=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
>>
>>
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>> 	Virus-free. www.avast.com 
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>
>>
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220303/fdd2866a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list