Dear Dominic, Apologies if this goes through twice. The SIG list cannot handle any size of attachment so I am just going to send this message twice assuming the first time it didn't go through.
Begin normal message: Thanks for this. As I was working on preparing this issue, I reread the minutes and the issue documentation since I had been assigned the coordination of the various HWs. I didn't find any assignments for you or Martin listed there (https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-682 -list-externally-maintained-crm-compatible-extensions-on-new-section-of-crm-site) or I definitely would have reached out to ask about it. Nevertheless, good to hear you have been working on something. Since the text and approach were already agreed by a vote at the SIG, I guess you are doing the mentioned 'tweaking' of the criteria doc? Would you like to share what you have in a google doc or equivalent with everyone else and we can deal with it with the rest of the issue next week? I will try to attach a word doc that has the agreed text voted on by the SIG as a recall for everyone. Best, George On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 12:22 PM George Bruseker <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Dominic, > > Thanks for this. As I was working on preparing this issue, I reread the > minutes and the issue documentation since I had been assigned the > coordination of the various HWs. I didn't find any assignments for you or > Martin listed there ( > https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-682-list-externally-maintained-crm-compatible-extensions-on-new-section-of-crm-site) > or I definitely would have reached out to ask about it. > > Nevertheless, good to hear you have been working on something. > > Since the text and approach were already agreed by a vote at the SIG, I > guess you are doing the mentioned 'tweaking' of the criteria doc? > > Would you like to share what you have in a google doc or equivalent with > everyone else and we can deal with it with the rest of the issue next week? > > I will try to attach a word doc that has the agreed text voted on by the > SIG as a recall for everyone. > > Best, > > George > > > > > > >> Hi George >> >> Thanks for this. >> >> The document that was homework for Martin and I on the new framework has >> been delayed (although nearly complete) and is now not on the agenda for >> the next meeting. >> >> I think there are different ways to approach the administration of this >> and it would be good to talk about this as a group. But I think that people >> need to see the final draft proposal first, which I hope will be available >> soon. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dominic >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 at 09:41, George Bruseker via Crm-sig < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> In the run up to the CRM SIG meeting later this month, I am passing on >>> this HW. >>> >>> This HW is basically to align the decisions to proceed with the proposal >>> on listing compatible ontologies on the website and coming up with a >>> practical proposal on how to integrate this into the information on the >>> website. Here is the proposal: >>> >>> Following the decision of the SIG, we will list compatible ontologies, >>> clearly marked as NOT made by the SIG and NOT harmonized ontologies but >>> useful compatible efforts. For the reasons and rationales etc. consult the >>> history of the issue. >>> >>> What needs doing is to decide how and where to list this info on the >>> website in order to be clear what these are and what they are not. >>> >>> Therefore, I propose we should have a 'harmonized ontologies' and >>> 'compatible ontologies' section. >>> >>> The existing 'compatible models' section which has the official CRM >>> harmonized ontologies listed would be renamed to Harmonized Ontologies. >>> Other than that, no change to this section. >>> >>> The new section would have the name 'Compatible Ontologies'. There we >>> need at least two pages. The first page explains what a compatible ontology >>> is. The second one has the list of compatible ontologies. >>> >>> For the first page, with the explanation of what compatible ontologies >>> are and how to become one, we already have the text we produced so we can >>> just use that as the website text. >>> >>> For the second page, regarding displaying the compatible ontologies I >>> would suggest that we have a standard list view / item view approach. So we >>> would have a list view that would show in a table all compatible ontologies >>> and their top level information. And then when you click on a particular >>> ontology, you go to an item view. The item view will display the rest of >>> the metadata for that entry. Please note that this differs significantly >>> from the 'harmonized ontologies section. When you click on the compatible >>> ontology you do not go to a new website maintained by the SIG. You just go >>> to an item view with more metadata and links to the ontology providers >>> pages. We don't want or need to maintain a whole website for them, these >>> are not our ontologies just a reference list of compatible ontologies. When >>> you click on the item view you would see the rest of the information we >>> have stored about this ontology. >>> >>> With regards to which of the main menus this goes in, I think this needs >>> to be aligned with the overall website organization homework. >>> >>> This is the metadata document that we already agreed: >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1etOTY9bKIT4IQRJg5csQ1_ho6Rk53djwDVFYu7bPftw/edit?gid=1752254642#gid=1752254642 >>> >>> On the second tab, I transposed that into a table view. I marked things >>> in yellow which might be nice to display in the list view (to see at a >>> glance) and in orange what would be additional info that probably is better >>> to see in the item view. >>> >>> Also as I work on other homework, I am wondering if we should enter a >>> registration date for the information and set an automatic checkin of some >>> number of years to see if the info is still valid. This comes to me from >>> looking at other data on the site which is very out of date, which is hard >>> to get on top of. >>> >>> There is a subissue to this issue of how to handled ontologies that are >>> no longer maintained. >>> >>> Quoth Eleni >>> >>> "I'm alright with what you're proposing. I'm only unclear with how to >>> treat PRESSoo and CRMba. They are by default harmonized with 5.0.4, but >>> they are no longer harmonized. We said we would link harmonized models to >>> the CIDOC and model versions. But I don't know what this means in terms of >>> listing them." >>> >>> Quoth Pavlos >>> >>> "I think the proposal is good. Imo, it is important NOT to confuse the >>> categories (ontologies maintained by us vs. ontologies maintained by >>> others). >>> >>> Regarding PRESSoo and CRMba: they both have stable versions aligned with >>> some stable version of the base model. So, I would consider them harmonized >>> even if there is no WG working on them. No?" >>> >>> I think we could keep discussing this in person at the next SIG? >>> >>> Maybe it needs its own issue or a particular decision from the involved >>> parties. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> George >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 6:00 AM Eleni Tsouloucha <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> here's a reminder for issue 682 >>>> <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-682-list-externally-maintained-crm-compatible-extensions-on-new-section-of-crm-site>. >>>> For the moment, there is not a lot of wordsmithing involved, the proposal >>>> was accepted, but what it requires is a proposal on how to share this info >>>> on the site, and how to incorporate it in the new release of the site. So >>>> it ties in with issue 697 >>>> <https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-697-cidoc-crm-website-reorganized>. >>>> >>>> Do you want to go over it at some point this week? >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Eleni Tsouloucha >>>> Philologist - MA Linguistics & Language Technologies >>>> Center for Cultural Informatics >>>> Information Systems Laboratory - Institute of Computer Science >>>> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) >>>> >>>> Address: N. Plastira 100, GR-70013 Heraklion, Grece >>>> email: [email protected], [email protected] >>>> Tel: +30 2810391488 >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
