Dear Martin, all, I withdraw my participation from the issue. Please proceed as you see fit.
Best George On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 8:19 PM Martin Doerr <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear George, All, > > My submissions will speed up the harmonized official version of CRMdig. > We have new evidence, since CRMsci and CRMinf are hamonized now and nearly > ready, > and we have identified actual users of CRMdig at hand. > > Note that the minutes say: > " > > - Break the model *in small subtasks* (review properties, Digital > Objects etc) > > *HW*: GB to coordinate the group of people involved in this task, CEO, ( > *MD*), and confer with ML and GH. Inform the Sig in the next meeting. > > " > > The decisions you refer to are 2 years old, things have changed since then: > > *A summary of decisions & assigned HW can be found below*: > > - Make D13 Digital Information Carrier IsA E22 Human-Made Object > - Deprecate D9, introduce Lxx encodes dimension > *HW*: GB to provide definition > - Make D35 ISA D1, add property (for association with a digital place > primitive) > *HW*: *MD* to draft the property definition > - D29, D30 to be moved to CRMinf instead > - *HW*: Provide a new scope, name editors (MD, GB) > > > Therefore I propose > > *a):* > > *Undo* deprecation of D9, use my first submission (NEW ISSUE: Reviewing > CRMdig 4.0 Digitization and D9) instead, because it resolves the *ontological > mismatch* with E54 Dimension and provides harmonization already, and it > is *backwards compatible* with the previous versions *in use*. > > Obviously, it makes *no sense to first deleting D9* and in the next > reintroducing it. Must be decided before 547 is closed. Isn't it? > *b)* *Deprecate L60 *as foreseen, introduce *L61 contains value set of > (has value set representation) as "**Lxx* *encodes dimension", *fully > described in my submission. > > *c) Undo* D29, D30 to be moved to CRMinf instead. This is again a > *non-backwards > compatible* decision, and does not affect the sense of the concepts, > which were not questioned. > Since CRMinf is now nearly finished, it would create an unnecessary > interruption of the process f CRMinf, which should have priority. > Further, objections came from promoters of the Open Annotation Model as > competitors, which is not based on a Named Graph logic. Competitive Models > have never been an argument for deleting existing CR-compatible models, but > an argument for investing in a mapping. > > With my recent submissions, I broke it 547 into two small subtasks. This > is the second: > > *d)* I resolved D35 completely, my submission "NEW ISSUE: Reviewing Area > in CRMdig 4.0" is the above homework, part of issue 547. You can change the > label as part of Issue 547, not a new issue. > > So, I kindly ask why my proposals should not directly be discussed before > closing issue 547, since they answer exactly to the problems encountered > with the current version and resolve basically the harmonization question > already. > You wrote: "I noticed you added new properties, will they have scope notes > to consider by the SIG? " Please do read my submissions before insisting on > a less effective procedure, and consider that I am equally involved in > issue 547 from the outset. > > Best, > > Martin > > > > On 9/9/2025 8:04 AM, George Bruseker wrote: > > Dear Martin, > > Our goal was to complete the issues as tasked by decision of the committee > and documented in the issue. Furthermore our aim was to come up with a > harmonized version that was official so that we can have a smooth > development process moving forward. It looks like your D35 changes fit > within that hopefully (obviously the group needs to review and understand). > I noticed you added new properties, will they have scope notes to consider > by the SIG? Whether you agree with the comments on the annotation model it > was already decided to take those classes out of CRMdig which this document > simply reiterates. So unless you want to create an issue to undo that > issue, I guess we will go ahead with that. I would ask you to consider the > utility of having a harmonized official version. > > Best, > > George > > On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 8:45 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear George, >> >> I kindly ask you to read carefully what I am proposing for CRMdig. I >> argue that I provide new evidence on issue 547. >> >> I had carefully studied the text for issue 547, and propose a viable >> alternative to your arguments (which we had shared then) already in >> harmony with CRMsci for D9 and D11. Therefore I propose not to delete >> concepts we will possibly need to reintroduce, and are not backwards >> compatible. >> >> Second, I have completed the Area concepts with the missing parts from >> the applied software. It is a generic concept in line with METS, a very >> important standard. >> >> Finally, the fact that the Annotation model appears to be competitive >> with another annotation model does not make it obsolete per se. It makes >> use of Named Graph logic, which is very elegant and compact. Van der >> Soempel personally told me that they made the Annotation Model as it is >> because Named Graphs were not mature at that time. >> >> Note that I am editor of CRMdig and domain expert. I do not agree with >> this judgement: >> "Annotation is an important area of digital humanities work. This >> modeling is very early modelling and misses out on many efforts since >> then. It is not informed by recent work and it is not a profound >> ontological contribution anyhow. " >> >> If we drop a requirement for these deletions, we can directly review the >> harmonization with the other models. I argue that my proposals are >> already mature enough. >> >> Please let us review this together. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Martin >> >> -- > ------------------------------------ > 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 > > Email: [email protected] > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl > >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
