Just a general point on this subject. During the next SIG meeting I would like to bring up some practical issues related to part of our key user base - museums and other heritage organisations.
As more heritage organisations adopt CIDOC CRM (in *internal operational systems*) we need to be aware of how CIDOC CRM works for them - part of our understanding of CIDOC CRM in practice. The ontologies that have been in development with a particular eye on ontology harmonisation are very useful for practical implementation. The work on CRMInf and CRMSci, even though there is still some finishing to be done, have already been adopted (replacing previous versions) in an operational system and will be used in others. These will be used 9-5, 5 days a week by whole departments, etc. In academic projects updates may not take place during the term of the project. Projects last for fixed periods and their objectives for *community harmonisation* (one of the main reasons for CIDOC CRM's development) have in practice been relatively low. The CIDOC CRM is a museum standard under the auspices of CIDOC. As we install CIDOC CRM in organisational systems - these systems are expected to last many years and to evolve over time. The ecosystem is completely different to academic research projects. At the National Archives (UK) we just upgraded their operational system (ResearchSpace) to the latest versions of Inf and Sci. This obviously meant altering patterns in their existing rdf graph. The changes to the ontologies were seen as highly beneficial because they addressed practical harmonisation issues - they had operational benefits amongst other improvements (my thanks to the people involved!). In these systems CRMDig is also used (scientific digital equipment). It is used successfully with no real practical problems. Again, harmonisation would be beneficial and should be the priority. Using graph systems means that replacing patterns within the graph is less onerous. This is just one of many reasons why we use them - 'dynamic flexibility' in a transdisciplinary environment - and we should all expect the ontologies to change over time as part of a standard's workings. Graph systems are flexible and well suited to adopting these changes meaning that we can update organisations to the latest versions of the CRM ontologies (preventing them from being static and supporting community harmonisation even where those local models of CRM are continually expanding (again a benefit of graphs as evolving and expanding structures). However, they still require resources and time to implement and are not trivial - they require appropriate expertise (as with any system). We need to consider very carefully the changes we make and whether they are really needed partly by looking at their operation in practice which is interconnected to other considerations. This question of practice comes up frequently as a key element of CRM modelling. We would do well to consider practice (without any compromise the principles of the CRM - of course) more carefully. The recent changes to CRMSCi and CRMInf demonstrate a really good approach. CRMDig in practice works, and changes should also focus on harmonisation and errors, in the context of existing practical use and benefits of the current version. The CRM is mature! - Surely we are in a phase of consolidating it and mostly making smaller but significant improvements, which improve harmonisation both in the ontology and across the museum community. This would, amongst other initiatives, very much help with adoption. I would like to propose that we look at these issues and, with Pavlos' permission, will write something on this subject. Thanks, Dominic On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 18:33, George Bruseker via Crm-sig < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
