On 03/04/2013 14:22, Joseph Padfield wrote:
> One the of the main issues with CIDOC-CRM is the lack of simple. but
> real, examples of its use. The theoretical documentation on its own is
> only really helpful for specialists.
>
> Once there is a growing number of simple examples the community
> "could" begin to agree on how it is used, or more likely how different
> requirements are expressed. These simple then, peer reviewed, examples
> could be the basis of further use.
>
> A museum object
> An artist
> A location
> A simple event
> Dates
> examples materials
>
> And then how these things interrelate in an actual practical real
> working process way. Not just theoretical examples, but actual
> implemented examples showing how it is really used.
>
> I am not sure the best forum to present and discuss these types of
> examples though. The BM should be presenting their work soon, but
> again this may end up being too complicated to start to include others.
>
> Where do people think this type of presentation and collaborative peer
> review process should and practically could appear ?
We've been trying for a while to get discussion going on what I have
called "Linked Data Design Patterns", in the context of CIDOC's
Documentation Standards Working Group. This is essentially the process
you outline above. If, as Nick suggests, there is now a critical mass
of people willing to put some effort into this, I am more than happy to
offer the CIDOC DSWG as an umbrella under which they can do it. (This
approach would potentially widen participation beyond the U.K., which
can only be a good thing. Also, in our previous meetings we have
included archivists and TEI folks.)
Conversely, I'm equally happy to contribute in some other setting.
Richard
>
> And for the record I do use the CIDOC-CRM and similar event driven
> ontologies for internal National Gallery research applications, but we
> do not have a full public API at this time.
>
> Joe
>
>
> On 03/04/13 13:59, Mia wrote:
>> On 2 April 2013 15:40, Nick Poole <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> In so doing, again theoretically, the distinction between 'internal'
>>> applications and 'external' ones becomes arbitrary. If the modelling
>>> and
>>> contextualisation of the data in terms of entities and relations is
>>> sufficient and if vocabularies are available as services rather than
>>> term
>>> lists, then it ought to be possible to derive your internal usage
>>> and your
>>> external usage from the same body of information.
>>>
>> I suppose this is where things fall down slightly for me - I've found it
>> difficult to reliably and accurately match terms across collections
>> without
>> some specialist knowledge of the collections and their documentation
>> history. Publishing collections records from the Science Museum Group
>> taught me that preparing data (as in catalogue field, not
>> descriptions) for
>> use externally can take as much thought and care as any other
>> audience-focussed publication process. There's an awful lot of tacit
>> knowledge contained in collections records that isn't obvious in
>> machine-processable documentation, which is I suspect one reason for
>> under-use of machine-readable GLAM data*.
>>
>> And out of curiosity, how many museums, libraries, archives etc are
>> already
>> using CIDOC-CRM for some or all of their collections? Are we
>> anywhere near
>> a critical mass of content or experience with CRM or is everyone
>> crying off
>> with a headache? And what internal uses are people making of their own
>> collections data - who's drinking their own champagne? Drop me a line
>> off-list if you don't want to reply-all.
>>
>> On 3 April 2013 13:17, Richard Light <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> The criteria should be that the information resources we want to
>>> work with
>>> (a) have a persistent unique identity, (b) are reliably accessible
>>> through
>>> the web and (c) are machine-processible.
>>
>> And (d) use shared vocabulary services rather than local term lists
>> whenever possible?
>>
>> Making more of existing resources is hugely important so I'm really
>> glad to
>> see this discussion happening and (popping my 'MCG Chair' hat on for a
>> minute), let me know if there's anything we can do to help continue
>> discussions at events or online.
>>
>> Cheers, Mia
>>
>> * If you're interested in that, an article I wrote on 'Where next for
>> open
>> cultural data in museums?' went live on Museum-iD magazine ā€¸yesterday
>> http://www.museum-id.com/idea-detail.asp?id=387
>>
>> ****************************************************************
>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>> ****************************************************************
>>
>
--
*Richard Light*
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|