25thCIDOC SIG meeting and the 18th FRBR-CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting

April30th – May 3rd, 2012

ICS – FORTH

Heraklion, Crete, Greece

Participants:

Chryssoula Bekiari (ICS-FORTH, GR), Patrick Le Boeuf (National Library of France, FR),Martin Doerr (ICS-FORTH, GR), Øyvind Eide(King’s College London, UK), Gerald de Jong, (Delving B.V), Athina Kritsotaki (ICS-FORTH, GR), Dominik Lukas (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, DE), Pat Riva (Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, CA), Michalis Sfakakis (IONION University, GR), Richard Smiraglia (University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, USA), Maja Žumer (National and University Library, SI), Thomas Wikman, (Delving B.V.).

Monday30/4/2012

  1. Pat Riva said that before the end of June, there will be a namespace for FRBRoo
  2. Patrick Le Boeuf gave a presentation about how FRBRoo addresses Serialswith the title “FRBRoo and seriality”
  3. Then we discussed about the identity of an expression. We accepted that the identity of an expression is given by content, but the case of electronic publishing needs checking.
  4. We modified the scope note of F12 Nomen and we added a chemical formula to the examplesaccording to Trond’s proposal.
  5. PLB will clarify the best encoding for the examples
  6. F13: we revised the scope note and the examples
  7. Rxx validity period became R34; we modified the scope note
  8. Maja will give examples for Nomen from FRSAD
  9. We added the quantifications of R33. Also we revised the scope note.
  10. We changed the example of F34 and we reviewed the scope note. Pat will make an example from DEWEY and PLB will provide an example from BnF’s authority file
  11. Then we discussed about script conversion. The definition of F36 and R36 was completed, R37 was added and PLB will complete the examples of R36 and R37.
  12. The scope note of R35 was revised.
  13. Then we discussed what the individuality of the nomen use statement is. It is not clear what constitutes the identity condition. We drew the following schema

Figure 1

  1. Finally we agreed that we don’t have the continuity. Do we really need it? PLB will give examples for R37.
  2. Then we discussed about Nomen Form and we completed the property R55. PR will addthe examples.
  3. “R56 has equivalence”became“ related use”. The SIG revised the scope note of the property.
  4. We changed the scope note and the range of R32.PR and PLB will provide examples. Also we deleted the “Rxx used during”and revised the R54.
  5. Then we revised again the scope note of F35modeling the continuity of the NUS over its authorization process, describing the seriality of valid editions.

Tuesday1/5/2012

  1. We started the discussion about Persona. We reviewed E74 Group and we discussed whether we really need persona. We tried to figure out how will be the mappings to the bibliographic records which record Persona. Finally, we accepted that there is confusion between ontology and epistemology and we decided to delete persona and to write a paragraph to the scope note of person in CRM.
  2. Pat will write such a statement by tomorrow.
  3. We should add an issue to the CRM about extending the scope note of E74 Group to virtual identities.

Also we discussed here the CRM ISSUE 199 about the by parent property. We added the definition of the property P152.

  1. Then we discussed the Controlled access point. The position of the SIG is that “nomen use statement” says what the controlled access point stands for. It is similar to VIAF. We accepted that the identification is achieved by identifier or by a cluster of properties describing the reality. We made changes to the F50 scope note and we made clear the distinction between Controlled Access Point and cross references. Also we proposed the Nomen Use Statement should be mentioned with other activities. Finally we agreed to put an issue to CRM to be an activity containing continuing activities in order to include Floruit. We set the R35 as a subproperty of P148 has component (is component of). Under this discussion we added R38. PLB will prepare examples for it.
  2. Consequently, we reviewed the properties of F51 Floruit and F52 Name Use Activity.
  3. R59: Martin Doerr will add the shortcut in subproperty part, Maja and Patrick will add examples
  4. R60: Patrick will add examples.
  5. R61, R62: the superproperty part is missing (it should be a shortcut) and Patrick will add examples
  6. R63, R64 are defined. PR will propose examples for them
  7. Then we started to review the super and sub classes of the classes.
  8. F38 Character: There is a relation between character and conceptual Object, so we accepted to declare F38 as a subclass of E28. We revised R57 and R58
  9. F52 Name Use Activity: we consider that F52 qualifies as E13 as a single action, even though it is a repeated action, because there is an inherited unity criterion of a common shared tradition.

Wednesday2/5/2012

  1. We reviewed the examples of F34 KOS
  2. We reviewed Pat’s note for person and we made the appropriate changes in the scope note of F10 Person.
  3. Then we discussed the examples proposed by Pat on F52 Name Use Activity. Pat will write an introduction about the examples of Canadian Academic Centre in Italy, showing all the new concepts. Also early in the introduction in 1.1 Pat will write a note about FRSAD, FRAD.
  4. The text in 1.1.10 will be updated by Martin
  5. The text in 1.1.6 will be updated by Patrick
  6. The figures should be updated for being compatible with CIDOC CRM 5.0.4
  7. The text in 1.3 will be updated by Pat.
  8. Afterwards we changed the scope notes of F40. We have to review the examples and transfer to where it is appropriate.
  9. We decided to delete R47 since it is covered by P142 and to transfer the examples to CIDOC CRM.
  10. In the following we made modifications in R11 and Patrick will write a paragraph to the introduction about bibliographic record and serial work in 1.2.2, presenting the possible interpretations of typical bibliographic records.
  11. Discussing the FRBRoo issue no.5, we deleted the last sentence in F3 and for clarification of the concepts involved in F24 Publication Expression Martin will write an explanation about how multiple expressions are realized via incorporation. This note will be part of the scope note of F24.
  12. Consequently Martin made a presentation about “Identity of Information Objects”. Focusing on the concept of authenticity we followed thereflection presented in figure 2.

Figure 2

Afterwards, focusing on electronic publishing, we accepted that a web page is an event and we made changes in the scope note of F19.

  1. We summarized the homeworks for the next meeting,
  2. examples for F35, F51, R59 by Patrick
  3. F52, R32, R61 by Patrick and Pat
  4. R63 subproperty by Martin, examples by Pat and Patrick.
  5. Reviewing the validity period R34, the SIG decided to post an issue to CRM that sometime the “validity period” should be introduced to CIDOC CRM. Also Pat will give examples from DEWEY by next day.
  6. Maja will give examples for R39
  7. Martin will revise R61.
  8. Also we decided to transfer the remaining classes and properties of Identifier Creation Model Class declaration to the 2.6 FRBRoo class Declaration and 2.7 FRBRoo property declaration sections respectively. In the Appendix, it will be added a section about Modelling of Identifier Cretion.
  9. We deleted F37 and we added examples to F39.

Thursday3/5/2012

We started to review the CIDOC CRM issues

  1. ISSUE 200: we reviewed the E41 Appellation to be aligned with F12 Nomen and we added an example with Chinese characters.
  2. ISSUE 201: we discussed whether a place can consist of a place. We discussed an example shown in figure 3.

Figure 3

and we considered the following reflections:

–my house has former/current location which occupies spaceXX

–Mona Lisa occupies Mona Lisa Space which falls within Paris space

Finally we agreed that Martin will post a new issue for E18 occupies space.

  1. ISSUE 202: Martin will write a paragraph
  2. ISSUE 203: We discussed whether the "incorporates" property of FRBRoo should become part of the CRM as a fundamental construct. We agreed to add a new property between E73 Information Objects, covering the sense of information content, equivalences of transcriptions and images of inscriptions etc…
  3. ISSUE 204: We reviewed the scope notes of the properties P50, P52, P55, and we made the proposed change in the scope notes for these properties, plus P54. The SIG decided Martin would write a paragraph about temporal validity and "current" propertiesfor it to be added to the section Modeling Principles, possibly under monotonicity.
  4. ISSUE 205:We discussed about the concepts behind properties P65, P138, P129, P67 following the fig. 4

Figure 4

We identified that (1) there is a concrete question on incorporation (2) the deviations are not accidental on pictures calibration (3) there is a complete sensory impressing. Finally Martin and Øyvind will check if the notion of incorporation can cover analogue to digital, and FORTH will write an example.

  1. ISSUE 206:It was related to 200.
  2. ISSUE 207: Martin will formulate an issue about the content of symbolic object
  3. ISSUE 208: We defined the scope notes and an example about a new property for narrower term partitive of E55 Type. We didn’t find a name for it and will postpone the naming until the next meeting. Also an example from museum world is needed.
  4. ISSUE 209: Since we changed the range of P142 used constituent (was used in) to E90 Symbolic Object, we made changes in the scope note of the P142 as well as in the transferred examples from R47. Also an example from the museum sector is needed.
  5. ISSUE 210: We formulated the new scope note of the new property P151.
  6. Then we discussed the “validity period” and how it might be represented in terms of CRM. We made the following considerations. If we accept the validity period as an instance of Temporal Entity and if we regard KOS as a plan or procedure and the validity exists as a plan or pertains to potential performance of planned / foreseen actions, declared by “authority” then KOS can be seen as a subclass of E29 Design or Procedure
  7. The CRM-SIG discussed the email from Nicholas Croftsdated 5/12/2011 and decided to make the following changes to the first page of the CIDOC-CRM text.

Current Main Editors: Patrick Le Boeuf, Martin Doerr, Christian Emil Ore, Stephen Stead

Contributors:add the names of all those who participated in three meetings at least.

1