Ideally it would be great to have a range of options.
Here are is set of example extended tombstone style data with extended
shareable information.
Here is how it would be expressed in SPECTRUM
Here is how it would be expressed in LIDO
Here is how it would be expressed in CIDOC CRM
etc ....
Even better would then be comments about the differences and the
limitations. Why and when it is good to grapple with each level of
complexity.
And then perhaps a statement that these use cases and example practical
implementations are recognised as new SPECTRUM, SPECTRUM+, SPECTRUM
Version ??.
Linked data allows for the concept of name spaces different
presentations of data all in the same place, users of the data could
then just select the level of detail that their system or needs require.
People are grappling with how to store and relate more complex data not
just the basics. But we have to start some where, start with simple
examples and add in more complexity as required.
Going for the big win is great, but we need to make sure that the
process can evolve and become more complex as required. Not get people
convinced that linked data is the way to go and then tell them well
actually you can not do that sort of thing because we would need to do a
new mapping etc.
Joe
On 03/04/13 14:58, Nick Poole wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Echoing the points made earlier this afternoon - CIDOC-CRM is a conceptual reference model. To be useful, it has to be instantiated, adopted, integrated, supported, trained and used.
>
> Up to now, the power of CIDOC-CRM has been locked away in some of the most hideously complicated spider diagrams I have ever seen, which I freely confess have defeated me whenever I have come close to them (although I do suspect that they may be the inspiration behind the plot of Inception...)
>
> As soon as it is instantiated for a particular domain, it will probably upset people because they would have done it slightly differently (producing an industry-specific, usable model from CIDOC-CRM seems to be as much art as science). But that's not the point - the point is that *it has been instantiated*, at which point it starts to be useful.
>
> Take the CIDOC-CRM out of it for a moment - imagine we are talking about the UK/international museum sector creating its own industry standard for the representation of the full richness of its data (or as much of it as will realistically fit), so that other people can interrogate and use it programatically.
>
> This, to me, is the same impetus which drove the creation of the original MDA Data Standard, and latterly the SPECTRUM Units of Information and it is the prize which stands before us today. If we can set aside the necessarily complex and abstract nature of the CRM and focus instead on creating a new de facto industry standard for publishing museum data, then we are effectively taking ownership of our role as content publishers in a distributed Web.
>
> To me, this is a new SPECTRUM - or extension thereof. SPECTRUM saw exactly the kind of distributed collaboration which Joe calls for in his post, and nobody owns it because it's a shared and open standard. The fact that this new Museum Data Standard is rooted in CRM only adds to its strength (a) because of the fact that its richness reflects the richness of museum data and information and (b) because of the potential to open up crosswalks with other similarly-rooted, or mappable standards in related industries.
>
> Once we have an open Museum Data Standard, rooted in the CRM, connected to SPECTRUM procedures, instantiated in Collections Management Systems, not reductive (of either semantic or structural richness) and used in projects and applications, we have the basis of the kind of supported, user-friendly ecosystem that Adrian calls for because it essentially follows the same path to ubiquity that SPECTRUM trod before it.
>
> I would really value views on whether we can set aside the various sectarian questions about this or that interpretation of CRM and look instead to the bigger win of setting out our stall as providers of linked data.
>
> All best,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
> Nick Poole
> Chief Executive Officer
> Collections Trust
>
> Insurance for Museums Conference 2013
> 25 April 2013 • British Library Conference Centre
>
> 2-3 July 2013, The Kia Oval
> www.openculture2013.org.uk
>
>
>
> Linked
> Join CT's Collections Management Group
>
> Visit Collections Trust online
> www.collectionstrust.org.uk
> www.collectionslink.org.uk
> www.culturegrid.org.uk
>
> Company Registration No: 1300565 Registered Charity No: 273984
> Registered Office: Collections Trust, WC 209, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Stevenson
> Sent: 03 April 2013 14:42
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: New blog on Collections Link - Create Once, Publish Everywhere & ResearchSpace
>
> Hi All
>
> On 3 Apr 2013, at 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.
> I'd give a big +1 to that point. I've tried a number of times along with several colleagues to get a good sense of what CIDOC-CRM is all about, but it tends to prove elusive. Similar to Mia's experience, this has been with some very experienced people in their field, so it's hard not to think that if it's too tricky for them, it's not really a goer. The CIDOC website could do with far better resources to make the case. I have dug around a reasonable amount, but I haven't come across any particularly good documents, so I'd be happy receive any good refs, either on or offline.
>
> Adrian
> _____________________________
> Adrian Stevenson
> Senior Technical Innovations Coordinator Mimas, The University of Manchester Devonshire House, Oxford Road Manchester M13 9QH
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 6065
> http://www.mimas.ac.uk
> http://www.twitter.com/adrianstevenson
> http://uk.linkedin.com/in/adrianstevenson/
>
>
>
>
>> 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 ?
>>
>> 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
>>> 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/
>>> ****************************************************************
>>>
>> --
>> *Joseph Padfield*
>> Conservation Scientist
>> Scientific Department
>> The National Gallery
>> Trafalgar Square
>> London WC2N 5DN
>> 44 (0)20 7747 2553
>> http://research.ng-london.org.uk
>> http://www.twitter.com/JoePadfield
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Barocci: Brilliance and Grace
>> 27 February - 19 May 2013
>>
>> Book now:
>> www.nationalgallery.org.uk/barocci-brilliance-and-grace
>>
>> Sign up for news, offers and exclusive competitions from the National
>> Gallery:
>> http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/what/news/subscribe.htm
>>
>> ****************************************************************
>> 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/
>> ****************************************************************
>
> ****************************************************************
> 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/
> ****************************************************************
>
> ****************************************************************
> 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/
> ****************************************************************
--
*Joseph Padfield*
Conservation Scientist
Scientific Department
The National Gallery
Trafalgar Square
London WC2N 5DN
44 (0)20 7747 2553
http://research.ng-london.org.uk
http://www.twitter.com/JoePadfield
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barocci: Brilliance and Grace
27 February - 19 May 2013
Book now:
www.nationalgallery.org.uk/barocci-brilliance-and-grace
Sign up for news, offers and exclusive competitions from the
National Gallery:
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/what/news/subscribe.htm
****************************************************************
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/
****************************************************************
|
