Issue 326: Resolving inconsistences between E2, E4, E52 and E92

Starting Date: 
2016-12-07
Status: 
Proposed
Background: 
In the 36th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 29th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig discussed the points that CEO brought into light through emails  about the inconsistencies of STV, Periods, Time spans. and proposed  to make E2 and E92 child of E52, this means that every physical thing gets an on going through out, as well as occurs within  for endurance though it makes more sense to say existing ongoing throughout (for P81). It also makes P4 and P161 redundant. In the light of the above the crm-sig proposed to think about the difference between perdurants and endurants.  MD argued  that for perdurants we look at substance of change, for endurance we look at substance of sameness, also getting rid of P4 is not backwards compatible, but we could build a transformation rule.
 
Heraklion, August 2016
Current Proposal: 

In the 37th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 30th   FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting,  the crm-sig made a list of problems/realizations needed to be discussed more and concluded that next steps should be:

a)       To find examples of  E2  that are not spacetime volumes (ie non spatial)

b)       To find examples of  declarative time spans and places

c)       To prepare a practice guide experience (decision from CRMgeo) where to use declarative place

Homework for the next meeting is assigned to GB to write a text about this situation and then this text should be reviewed by Wolfgang and CEO

Berlin, December 2016

Reference to Issues: