Issue 264: CRM extensions, how we talk about them

Starting Date: 
Working Group: 
Closing Date: 

In 31st joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG, ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 24th FRBR - CIDOC CRM, discussing about the modularity of crm family models, we argued that we have two models the original and the projectional model. Carlo Meghini and Martin Doer will elaborate the formulation of modularity.Also the crm-sig proposed a new issue to be added about "how do we talk about  the crm and its extensions and what we regard them as ontology and how to distinguish them, part of ontologies or different ontologies".

Maria daskalaki will elaborate a draft text.

Heraklion, Crete, October 2014

Posted by Martin   on 21/01/2015

About modularity: I think this was about the extensions, and how to encode and define consistency that an extension may introduce a new class between two classes of another module, and then "lift up" a property from the lower class to the intermediate, i.e., make the domain larger, but not as large as the next higher class in the  older module, without intended change of meaning. 

Such as: mymodule 1 contains Physical Thing .has part, Physical Thing subclass of Thing, now I introduce in mymodule2 "Material Substantial" between Physical Thing and Thing, but using the extension mymodule2, I want to use "has_part" also for Material Substantial", without "taking it" from "mymodule 1".

Current Proposal: 

In the 32nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 25th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig discussed  about ontologies and assigned to Maria Daskalaki to elaborate a text about how we should talk about them. Also Christian Emil  will sent something from Stanford Encyclopedia.

Oxford, February 2015


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 decided to merge  this issue with  the issue 314. This issue is closed.

Berlin, December 2016

Reference to Issues: