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
