I agree with Philippe that a tracking tool for small edits is a good idea. In my experience translation projects do tend to notice all these small imperfections in the source document. The translator has to figure out what was meant to do the translation. If there is no quick way to document them, it is easy to lose the opportunity to make the corrections.

There are also likely to be similar small editorial points discovered in the extensions, and eventually also in the translations. If the same file is shared, it will need a column to indicate which model and which language. Or there could be distinct files along the same pattern.


Pat Riva

Associate University Librarian, Collection Services (on leave)

Concordia University


Vanier Library (VL-301-61)

7141 Sherbrooke Street West

Montreal, QC H4B 1R6



From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Philippe Michon via Crm-sig <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Sent: June 2, 2021 10:01 AM
To: crm-sig <Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Small Edits Checklist

Dear all,

Currently, there is no formal process to identify small errors and/or typos in the CIDOC CRM documentation. If a user notices, for example, a spelling mistake in the text, two options seem possible:

  • Write an email for an editor to correct the mistake;

  • Create a dedicated issue. 


Both options seem not quite adequate: on the one hand, sending an email can discourage those who are not familiar with the structure of the SIG and, on the other hand, the issues should be used for substantive discussions rather than for minor edits.


For this reason, should we put in place a tool that would allow anyone to identify minor errors in the CIDOC CRM documentation and which would also be used by editors to follow up? If so, do we think a spreadsheet with a structure similar to this would be a good place to start? Note that this document is currently hosted on the Canadian Heritage Information Network's Google Drive, but if everyone agrees this is relevant, it should be hosted by the SIG.

In the context of this issue, I would particularly like to obtain your comments on the following questions:

  1. Should this be implemented?

  2. Does this type of tool/document seem relevant to us?

  3. Do we like the current structure or would it be better to make some changes?

  4. How should we make this document accessible? Is one link in this issue sufficient?

  5. Regardless of where the document is published, would it be relevant to present the objectives and a tutorial on how to use this document in a few paragraphs?

  6. Any other questions to discuss?


Kind regards,



Philippe Michon

(he/il – https://name.pn/philippe-michon)

Semantic Web Analyst
Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN)
Department of Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada
1030 Innes Road, Ottawa (Ontario) K1B 4S7

Tel: 613-998-3721 ext. 225 or 1-800-520-2446

Analyste en web sémantique
Réseau canadien d'information sur le patrimoine (RCIP)
Ministère du Patrimoine canadien, Gouvernement du Canada
1030 chemin Innes, Ottawa (Ontario), K1B 4S7

Tél. : 613-998-3721 poste 225 ou 1-800-520-2446