Issue 360: LRMoo
In the 38th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 31nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the members of Consolidation Editorial Group of the IFLA FRBR Review Group: Pat Riva, Patrick Le Bœuf, and Maja Žumer presented to the crm-sig the new Library Reference Model (LRM) . The crm-sig and the frbr-sig decided to harmonizing it with FRBRoo and CIDOC CRM. The outcome of the discussion is documented in the minutes of this meeting.
Heraklion, April 2017
In the 39th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 32nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-frbr sig worked on harmonization of the approved by IFLA LRM with FRBRoo. The outcome of this work documented in the minutes.
Heraklion, October 2017
posted by Pat on 5/12/2017
We have a first group of drafts for LRMoo for you comments. These are still very much drafts and we are aware that there is some lack of editorial consistency due to each person working separately on drafts without seeing the full picture. We are still missing a draft of the proposed merger of F3 Manifestation Product Type and F24 Publication Expression (and its related F19, F30, F32 and properties), but most of the classes we discussed in October are included.
We have also made a first draft of the LRM(er) to LRMoo mapping. Since we did not discuss the attributes in LRM(er) in October, the mapping shows some that are not obvious and may raise issues.
One thing we will need to discuss in January is how the LRM representative expression attributes will fit with the existing properties for representative expression and representative manifestation.
Looking forward to hearing what you think.
posted by Martin on 15/12/2017
I am working through it. It just made a formal exercise to check that all properties of deleting Individual Work and F22/F23 are consistent. Attached.
I'll look now at the F3/F24 merger.
posted by Martin on 16/12/2017
Dear Pat, all,
Just thinking about the F3 Manifestation Product Type and F24 Publication Expression merger.
A possible solution is a rethinking:
Publication Expression as the expression that includes determination of optical/material features of the Item,
and hence are F3.
If this includes the Manifestation Singleton as immediate manual work, and not a singular print,
this concept of expression extends to the hard-to-define borderlines between manually intended features and
not-intended features, such as slipping of a pen.
Then, we have to rethink Item. Is a painting an item, or a Manifestation Singleton? Is a booklet of paintings
an Item? I think we should somewhere restrict ourselves to some form of signs.
Is an inscription on a wall an Item? I'd say not.
(I would not like to include Patrick's remark that libraries continue to say they have an exemplar. I'd regard this as too
library specific. That's rights, as Patrick stated, but I do not see why we should change "Item" to this idea, because it
leaves the real Item undefined. Also, the purpose of FRBR was to serve the library user??)
The archival practice to bind things together as storage units must not be confused with the publisher intentions.
I'd tend to see an Item as a physical mobile object intended as a message to some public, i.e., not bound to a single receiver, as a
letter, but to be distributed (or go from hand to hand). That is an intention based definition.
Then, publication expression/ Manifestation would be the ultimate (relevant) form definition for the distribution.
Does it make sense to distinguish an "author expression" ?
Border cases are manuscripts with unique texts, but also desktop publishing. They include both aspects in one process and one product.
That is a strong argument to make F3 a case of expression (with optical/physical features).
The question is, if we would distinguish a non-optical Expression type. But I can imagine all transitions from an audio text to
a full pdf lay-out. So, may be more a question of a typology (than making a prototypical process the world and ignore the rest?)
that defines expression types that are "not yet publishable".
Then we are back at the question of the relevant signs, because any carrier has all optical and physical features.
So, rethinking, what does an author sending a text in Word or hand-written, but NOT MEANING the editor to use the layout?
posted by Martin on 17/12/2017
I add my latest proposal for the F3/F24 merger. Please comment. This is more complex!
posted by Pat on 18/12/2017Hi Martin,
Much food for thought here.
For F35 Nomen Use Statement: I am no longer convinced that it is a subclass of F2 Expression. Since we consider that an F2 Expression must express some F1 Work, and I cannot see what work is expressed by a nomen use statement. I think instead that F35 should be a subclass of E90 Symbolic Object.
For R4 carriers provided by, I agree that E90 Symbolic Object is better as the domain than F2. Any symbolic object can have carriers, not just an expression.
This fits well with your observation that F32 Carrier Production Event is more general than F3, as any E90 can have carriers produced for it.
For R5 has component, I agree with making it also a subproperty of P106
Declaring F3 Manifestation as a subclass of F2 Expression will be very unexpected to our readers and will have to be carefully explained in the scope note, as in the E-R formulation of LRM we have declared Expression and Manifestation to be disjoint. But in LRM we do not explicitly acknowledge that all manifestations are one-to-one with publication expressions, and thus have an essential nature as an aggregate (where the publisher's contribution is often minimized in cataloguing practice, but of course it must be there). Once we see it this way, then it does makes sense that the F3 Manifestation which is basically a specific kind of aggregating expression, is a subclass of F2.
For item, yes it is true that it must be something intended to be shared/multiply used, or else it would not be possible to have it in a library. And so I think I agree with this observation:
I'd tend to see an Item as a physical mobile object intended as a message to some public, i.e., not bound to a single receiver, as a
letter, but to be distributed (or go from hand to hand). That is an intention based definition.
I do hesitate to treat different content types separately, audio vs written or visual notation.
Posted by Maja on 19/12/2017
I agree with all except the Manifestation as subclass of Expression. I am not sure that Manifestation is an aggregating expression. Manifestation is the aggregate, the result, and it also embodies the aggregating expression. We also need the distinction between the expression ( in case of text an abstract sequence of words) and the way it is presented in a publication/Manifestation (with layout design, particular font, colour etc) in order to cluster all publications embodying the same expression (text in this example)…
posted by Martin on 19/12/2017
On 12/19/2017 12:49 PM, Žumer, Maja wrote:
> I agree with all except the Manifestation as subclass of Expression. I am not sure that Manifestation is an aggregating expression. Manifestation is the aggregate, the result, and it also embodies the aggregating expression. We also need the distinction between the expression ( in case of text an abstract sequence of words) and the way it is presented in a publication/Manifestation (with layout design, particular font, colour etc) in order to cluster all publications embodying the same expression (text in this example)…
I think there some fundamental methodological question to clarify:
A) If F2 and F3 do not have a common superclass, you need to define which substance and identity criteria are different for Manifestation and Expression in ALL cases. This must not be confused with "the distinction between the expression ( in case of text an abstract sequence of words) and the way it is presented in a publication/Manifestation". That would be a logical mistake. If the Manifestation is basically a bit a wider concept than the Publication Expression, it is still distinct from all non-publication expressions, albeit a special case of Expression.
B) Do all non-publication expressions have common characteristics beyond being Expressions? If not, we only need a typology of expressions which are definitely NOT publication expressions, such as a text identified as a sequence of of words or characters.
C) Are there cases in which we cannot separate the Manifestation from any other Expression? I argue that in desktop publishing, there are cases
of Expressions that cannot be distinguished from Manifestation, and primary manuscripts, if the intended message contains the physical appearance. If, on the other side, we argue that we can extract from any Manifestation a distinct Expression, albeit a secondary interpretation of an original work, we need to define which composition of levels of signs a manifestation must necessarily have. Can we do that?
D) Is the Manifestation result of a Work, an intellectual product with associated IPRs or not? If yes, it must be a kind of Expression. The only solution to maintain
A disjointness of F2 and F3 would be, to require F2 to be of a special form of of signs not shared by publication expressions, e.g. at least a character level without typeface, and to define a "super expression" which is more than F2 and F3. This may imply however, that there are Manifestations without any other Expression, as above, or to restrict F2 as something which in any case can be "manifestated" with substantially added features.
If Manifestation is NOT an intellectual product, we are back at the discussion between incidental carrier forms and product types, i.e.mechanical questions.
If I can get a clear, consistent answer to these question, I can think about a solution
posted by Martin on 5/1/2018
I wish you a Happy New Year!
Should we publish the attached to CRM-SIG before the meeting? All further editing will depend on if we agree on this logic...
Is there any mistake in it, any alternative to it?
posted by Pat on 8/1/2018
Yes, I think it will help people prepare to have this in advance.
I would propose to also distribute in advance the mapping from LRM(er) to LRMoo that Melanie prepared. I have attached it here.
In the reduction, there is one small point where I have a doubt. I am no longer convinced that F35 Nomen Use Statement is a subclass of F2 Expression, as it does not have a corresponding F1 Work. Rather, I think F35 is a subclass of E90 Symbolic Object.
The other draft rewritten scope notes do not have to be posted in advance. We can look at them when we are together, as we get to them.
posted by Trond on 9/1/2018
Merging F24 Publication Expression with F3 Manifestation Product Type is a needed simplification, but is also rather challenging to do this. I was assigned the job of drafting a scope note for the merged class, but failed completely because of my work load before Christmas.
Some comments to the before-christmas discussion:
The solution of merging F24 into F3 by keeping F3 as subclass of Type or Product Type but leaving out the inheritance from F2, allows us to distinguish well between the content of the publication and the publication as a whole. This works well for what we commonly think of as publications as their identity mainly is defined by the associated publication event rather than the nature of its substance. However, as we have seen, this model gets problematic when we try to be more generic and use it on other resources that are not the direct products of a typical publication process.
We also see that it is difficult to deal with other intellectual contributions that may be evident from the manifestation such as the selection, arrangement and presentation of expressions. If we merge F24 and F3, we also implicitly remove the possibility to relate the Publication Work (or other subtypes of Container Work) to the manifestation, simply because there will be no individual and identifiable expression (in the form of signs) of a Publication Work or an Aggregation Work. One solution can of course be to remove the Container Work and its subtypes, and maybe come up with some other solution for describing intellectual contributions in the form of selections, arrangements and presentations of expressions but this will probably only complicate the model.
Merging F3 into F24 and keeping the subclassing of F2 Expression is the alternative approach. As pointed out it is not in line with the LRM, although it kind of makes sense to view expression-manifestation as a continuum of more and more specifically designed signs. A main benefit of this is that it will make the model a bit simpler with respect to modelling Publication, Aggregation and Serial Works. Having this inheritance does not mean that we remove Manifestation (Product Type) as a specific entity from the model. It is a rather crucial to distinguish between Expressions and Manifestations, whether we want to show the contents of a manifestation, or the alternative publications of an expression.
Attached is a pdf with figures I made to try to figure out the problem.
posted by Pat on 10/1/2018
My first reaction is that your second drawing looks like the LRM general model of aggregates figure 5.7, with the publication work taking the role of the aggregating work, and the F3 is an aggregate manifestation.
posted by Martin on 10/1/2018
I agree with your comments. I would however generalize F3 into Manifestation, and have the product type as a special case.Then, F3 determines all features or appearance, regardless if singleton, electronic publishing, or industrial printing.
posted by Trond on 10/1/2018
Yes, it will be the same.
The problem I see is that LRM defines the aggregating work as the selection and sequencing, but does not define what the substance of the aggregating expression is. The general expression definition does not really match this case, and I am not sure if I believe in the existence of this entity in between the Aggregating Work and the Manifestation
posted by Melanie Roche on 14/1/2018
In the 40th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 33nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig reviewed the proposed changes by Martin, Pat and Melanie for the harmonization of LRM with FRBR. The outcome of the discussion and the resulted changes in text of LRM-FRBR is here.
HW have been assigned to Pat, MD an Maja
Cologne, January 2018
Posted by Martin on 21/3/2018
Here my humble attempt to settle the oldest dispute in this working group, please don't beat me
Subclass of: F2 Expression
Scope note: This class comprises artistic or intellectual expressions detailed and elaborated to the level of the actual or intended sensory impression of a respective carrier or other materialization of it with the purpose of communicating it to some public. Typically, it identifies a publishable form of the expression, but it may also be a unique form produced on some carrying material manually. In case of traditional publications in paper form, the sensory impression would comprise the optical and may be even tactile appearance of texts and illustrations in natural lighting conditions and the look and feel of the carrying material. In case of digital media, it would comprise the audio-visual or tactile signals produced by an adequate reading device including possible forms of interaction with it. If a material digital carrier is foreseen as medium of distribution it will further comprise its look and feel.
Instances of F3 Manifestation are distinct from typical expressions of authorial content, which are defined and subject to copyright issues at a higher level of symbolic representation: For instance, the authorial content of a publication and its copyright in traditional text writing would only be defined at the script level, whereas the manifestation would pertain to adding the type face, layout of pages and more. In other cases, the author himself may be responsible for the manifestation form of the expression as an integral work. In these cases, one may still distinguish the script content from the final optical or other sensory form. As such, F3 Manifestation and script-level forms of expressions must be regarded as special cases of F2 Expression, without making them equal.
An instance of F3 Manifestation may incorporate one or more than one instance of F2 Expression defined at the symbolic level reflecting the authors’ content of the manifestation and all additional input by the publisher; and the appropriate types of physical features for the medium of distribution if applicable. For example, hardcover and paperback are two distinct publications (i.e. two distinct instances of F3 Manifestation Product Type) even though authorial and editorial content are otherwise identical in both publications. The activity of cataloguing aims at the most accurate listing of features or traits of an instance of F3 Manifestation Product Type that are sufficient to distinguish it from another instance of F3 Manifestation Product Type.
In case of industrial products such as printed books, but also digital material, an instance of F3 Manifestation can be regarded as the “species”, and all copies as “specimens” of it. In these cases, an instance of F3 Manifestation defines all of the features or traits that instances of F5 Item normally display in order to be regarded as functional copies of a particular publication. However, due to problems in the production or copying process or subsequent events, one or more instances of F5 Item materializing it may not exhibit all these features or traits; yet such instances still retain their relationship to the same instance of F3 Manifestation.
Posted by Pat on 15/5/2018
This is the homework relating to LRMoo. I think it reacts to and continues from the series of emails that Martin sent in March. I will look to see if the R30 HW assigned to me and Maja is in this file or if I should do something more. I will also check to make sure that one of us does an updated version of the LRM mapping so that we can review it one more time.
In the 41st joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 34th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed the HW by Pat, Trond and Maja and decided the following.
(a) F1 Work scope note: The propositional content accepted but editing is needed for following the rules (substance, identity, existence, utility and purpose) proposed for the description of a class.
(b) R10 has member (is member of): to add a new property Rxx has part which should be superproperty of R10 makeing clear the role of this property as generalization over more specific forms of membership. This HW assigned to MD. Also the sig assigned to Pat, Trond to re write the scope note.
(c) R3 is realised in (realises). No conclusion about the different work realizations (partially or comprehensively realizes)
(d) R5 has component (is component of): There is a text in the scope not under consideration. Re-examination is needed for the conditions for incorporating foreign expressions as parts
(e) F2 Expression: to add original examples from previous F22 of FRBRoo 3, to check if F2 Expression is a superclass of F34 KOS and if R41 is needed
(f) F3 Manifestation: HW is assigned to Martin to add a reference to the fact that an F3 can also be an E99 Product Type (HW to MD). A text to explain how LRM differs from FRBRoo with regards to manifestation product type and manifestation singleton (Pat, Trond, Maja)
(g) R4 embodies (is embodied in):the scope note should be expanded to indicate the symbolic level of incorporation (HW to MD)
(h) R7 is materialization of (is materialized in), F30 Manifestation Creation : new revised scope notes.
(i) F5 Item: is revised. It is decided to enhance the scope note of P128 to point to the fact that carrying a symbolic object is never precisely complete (HW to MD)
(j) F55: deleted
(k) Fn storage unit is not accepted, we should add a paragraph to the F5 item scope note about using P46 and E19 to model the storage unit object (HW PLB)
(l) F34 title and scope note was changed
(m) F35 Nomen Use Statement, F12 Nomen: definition changed
(n) decision to form a discussion group for making a theory of giving identity of information objects. MD asks for participants to this discussion. OE will participate
(o) F33 Reproduction Event: scope note changed
(p) F54 Utilised Information Carrier: scope note changed. It remains pending the name change.
(q) R30, R31 : deleted
(r) F41: to be deprecated.
(s) F42: minor changes to scope note. It should be revised and the properties should be redesign (HW to MD)
(t) R40: It should be re design
The revised scope notes and the discussion notes are here
Lyon, May 2018
Posted by Patrick Le Boeuf on 30/6/2018
During the FRBRoo/LRMoo meeting on May 24th, I was asked to add a paragraph to the scope note of F5 Item in order to introduce the notion of storage unit without declaring a formal class for it. I also used this opportunity to change the examples, as they were intended to highlight the distinction between Item and Manifestation Singleton, which is no longer relevant as we deprecated Manifestation Singleton. Here is my homework:
Posted by Martin on 19/11/2018
Here my attempt for a "part" of a work..
Posted by Martin on 21/11/2018
F3 / R4 modifications added...here
Posted by Pat on 22/11/2018
This is the latest version of the ER-OO mapping. As you can see there are still just a few loose ends in attributes and relationships.
Posted by martin on 24/11/2018
Here my change of scope note:
P128 carries (is carried by)
Domain: E18 Physical Thing
Range: E90 Symbolic Object
Subproperty of: E70 Thing.P130 shows features of (features are also found on):E70 Thing
Superproperty of: E24 Physical Man-Made Thing. P65 shows visual item (is shown by): E36 Visual Item
Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n)
Scope note: This property identifies an E90 Symbolic Object carried by an instance of E18 Physical Thing.
§ Matthew’s paperback copy of Reach for the Sky (E84) carries the text of Reach for the Sky (E73)
In First Order Logic:
P128(x,y) ⊃ E18(x)
P128(x,y) ⊃ E90(y)
P128(x,y) ⊃ P130(x,y)
Scope note: This property identifies an E90 Symbolic Object carried by an instance of E18 Physical Thing. Since an instance of E90 Symbolic Object is defined as an immaterial idealization over potentially multiple carriers, an individual realization on a physical carrier may be defective due to deterioration or shortcomings in the process of creating the realization compared to the intended ideal. As long as these defects to not substantially affect the complete recognition of the respective symbolic object, we still regard that it carries an instance of this Symbolic Object. If these defects are of scholarly interest, the individual realization can be modeled as a Physical Feature. Note, that any instance of E90 Symbolic Object incorporated (P165)in the carried Symbolic Object is also carried by the same instance of E18 Physical Thing.
This needs to be formulated as deduction in FOL!
Posted by Steve on 28/11/2018
This property identifies an E90 Symbolic Object carried by an instance of E18 Physical Thing. Since an instance of E90 Symbolic Object is defined as an immaterial idealization over potentially multiple carriers, any individual realization on a particular physical carrier may be defective, due to deterioration or shortcomings in the process of creating the realization compared to the intended ideal. As long as such defects do not substantially affect the complete recognition of the respective symbolic object, it is still regarded as carrying an instance of this E90 Symbolic Object. If these defects are of scholarly interest, the particular realization can be modelled as an instance of E25 Man-Made Feature. Note, that any instance of E90 Symbolic Object incorporated (P165) in the carried Symbolic Object is also carried by the same instance of E18 Physical Thing.
NB I have changed this to point to E25 rather than just E26 Physical Feature
In the 42nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 35th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-frbr sig reviewed and revised the following:
- New scope note for F3 Manifestation
- New scope note for F5 Item
- Enhancing the scope note of P128 carries (is carried by)
- New scope note for the new property Rxx ‘has part (forms part of’)
- Redraft the scope note of R4 embodies (is embodied in)
- LRMer to LRMoo mapping: LRM-E3-A3 : In what concerns the Intended Audience attribute of LRM, it was proposed that instead of coming up with a new Rxx property such that would link an F2 Expression to an activity pattern, to be used by a specific group of people –which, in its turn would function as a constraint on the type of the activity –the alternative of extending E71 Man-made Thing : P103 was intended for (was intention of): E55 Type is best opted for. The reasoning is that the description “children’s book” does not evoke a particular use in the context of given group; what it does instead, is relate the designated object to the group of people it is suited for –in this case children. Given the disagreement, it was decided that expanding the scope of P103 ‘was intended for (was intention of) be formed into a new issue.
Berlin, November 2018
In the 43rd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 36th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig reviewed Pat's proposal for mappings of LRM and LRMoo and assigned to TA to produce the FRBR-LRM graphs by May 2019. Also the CB should produce a clean document for FRBR-LRM which will essentially comprise of the numbers of classes and properties, –not their scope notes, . The model will be based on the mapping of LRMer to LRMoo. The details of the discussion may be found here.
Heraklion, March 2019
posted by Martin on 12/5/2019
Here the scope note for the new class "Externalization Event" proposed in the last meeting. This unifies the expression creation with the performances on a higher level.
The idea being, that the "true" expression is always the activity, often being accidental what is recorded and in which way. The manuscript writing can be seen as a lone performance, with a patient paper under the hand holding the pen.
Fxx Externalization Event
Subclass of: E7 Activity
Superclass of: F28 Expression Creation (may be superclass of E65 Creation!)
Scope note: This class comprises activities of producing signs or sensory impressions as an organized, coherent and complete whole,intended for being received in this completeness by some audience, either directly via their senses or via persistent media at any later time. It comprises in particular novel expressions of thought, art in all forms, including rendering existing expressions, such as musical scores, theater plays or texts, in an individual way in performing arts or by graphic design.
Examples: The creation of the original manuscript score of ‘Uwertura tragiczna’ by Andrzej Panufnik in 1942 in Warsaw (F28)
The reconstruction from memory of the manuscript score of ‘Uwertura tragiczna’ by Andrzej Panufnik in 1945 after the original score was destroyed during the war (F28)
Performing the ballet entitled ‘Rite of spring’, as choreographed by Pina Bausch, in Avignon, at the Popes’ Palace, on July 7, 1995 [individual performance] (F31)
Performing the operatic work entitled ‘Dido and Aeneas’, as directed by Edward Gordon Craig and conducted by Martin Shaw, in London, Hampstead Conservatoire, on May 17, 18, and 19, 1900 [run of performances] (F31)
Properties: R19 created a realisation of (was realised through): F1 Work
The property R19 goes up from F28 to new class. We need a more general property from the Externalization Event to the persistent expressions it produced or contributed to, be it a manuscript, a recording, a painting of a theater scene. This property should generalize over R17 created (was created by): F2 Expression.
I could think of "Rxx has memorization in: F2 Expression".
The point is, that the persistent Expression could be a product directly of the "externalizers" or by the a member of the audience. If an author dictates a text to a scribe, or Platon reporting Sokrates, there is not much difference to someone taking video from a theater performance. This means, that the range of "Rxx has memorization in: F2 Expression" may or may not be product of another expression creation. It will however always require presence of the secondary creators in the primary externalization (or of a robot recording device).
Looking forward to your comments!
Posted by Patrick on 13/5/2019
Dear Martin, and dear all,
I'm sorry I couldn't attend the meeting, and I'm therefore not aware of the discussions that underlie this scope note. I think that the idea of declaring a specific class for the process of conveying information in a sensory form (for this is how I understand this new class) is extremely useful and interesting, so much so that I think it shouldn't be confined to LRMoo alone, but should be uplifted into CIDOC CRM, with additional examples taken from the universe of discourse of CIDOC CRM (such as a sculptor making a sculpture, an art student painting a copy of Mona Lisa, the Greek runner notifying Athenian citizens that their soldiers have won the Marathon battle, etc. -- perhaps even Martin or Steve giving a CIDOC CRM tutorial?).
In the proposed scope note, which is overall fine with me, I simply have some doubts about the clause "intended for being received in this completeness by some audience"; while I agree that this is generally the case, there are also many counter-examples: rehearsals are instances of Externalization Event, although the intention is only indirect here (performers rehearse in order to improve what the audience will receive in a later event); a teenager writing a diary may not want any audience to read the externalized Expression, and it is unclear whether Franz Kafka or Emily Dickison were OK with the idea of having their externalized Expressions reach an audience, as they requested that all their manuscripts be destroyed after their death; and I'm also thinking of Mediaeval and Eastern performances which are only intended to be seen by God or the gods (unless we regard God or the gods as a valid instance of audience). However, it is possible to solve the issue by saying that the instances of E39 Actor who externalize such Expressions are themselves their own audience, possibly the only audience for which those complete Expressions are intended.
As for the label for the new property, rather than "has memorization", I would think of something like "Rxx is witnessed in / is a witness of" (in the sense of codicology and textual criticism: manuscripts are called "witnesses" of a text tradition). The resulting Expression is but a "witness" of what happened during the Externalization Event.
At any rate, congratulations for this significant addition to the model, no matter whether it is LRMoo or CIDOC CRM!
Posted by Martin on 20/5/2019
Thank you very much for your elaborate thoughts!
On 5/13/2019 11:45 AM, email@example.com wrote:
> Dear Martin, and dear all,
> I'm sorry I couldn't attend the meeting, and I'm therefore not aware of the discussions that underlie this scope note. I think that the idea of declaring a specific class for the process of conveying information in a sensory form (for this is how I understand this new class) is extremely useful and interesting, so much so that I think it shouldn't be confined to LRMoo alone, but should be uplifted into CIDOC CRM, with additional examples taken from the universe of discourse of CIDOC CRM (such as a sculptor making a sculpture, an art student painting a copy of Mona Lisa, the Greek runner notifying Athenian citizens that their soldiers have won the Marathon battle, etc. -- perhaps even Martin or Steve giving a CIDOC CRM tutorial?).
That is indeed a justified thought, but all the context comes from LRM, and we have problems to keep CRMbase concise enough. So I'd rather tend to leave it in LRM.
> In the proposed scope note, which is overall fine with me, I simply have some doubts about the clause "intended for being received in this completeness by some audience"; while I agree that this is generally the case, there are also many counter-examples: rehearsals are instances of Externalization Event, although the intention is only indirect here (performers rehearse in order to improve what the audience will receive in a later event); a teenager writing a diary may not want any audience to read the externalized Expression, and it is unclear whether Franz Kafka or Emily Dickison were OK with the idea of having their externalized Expressions reach an audience, as they requested that all their manuscripts be destroyed after their death; and I'm also thinking of Mediaeval and Eastern performances which are only intended to be seen by God or the gods (unless we regard God or the gods as a valid instance of audience). However, it is possible to solve the issue by saying that the instances of E39 Actor who externalize such Expressions are themselves their own audience, possibly the only audience for which those complete Expressions are intended.
Well, difficult. In any case, the manuscripts were in a form potentially for an external audience. I wrote this phrase to make sure that not each utterance of a phoneme is regarded as externalization event. Since we model "bottom-up", I'd like to make sure we catch well the regular cases. The question, if private notes should be published, is quite interesting. Anybody has a right to hide and destroy his products, be it artists, researchers, technicians or amateurs in any capacity. The posthumous hunt for half-finished products of an artist is another social phenomenon.
For the time being, I'd rather concentrate on the intended externalizations, taking gods for a valid audience. But, we need a good way to describe the posthumous publication of fragmentary material. I'd rather tend to blame the editor for it?
> As for the label for the new property, rather than "has memorization", I would think of something like "Rxx is witnessed in / is a witness of" (in the sense of codicology and textual criticism: manuscripts are called "witnesses" of a text tradition). The resulting Expression is but a "witness" of what happened during the Externalization Event.
Sounds intellectually very clean, but I fear the narrower sense of "witness" will confuse people in case of recordings and simple writing??
Posted by Martin on 28/5/2019
Once we define Manifestation to be the signs and design, rather the copy, I propose the following redefinition of the CL properties:
CLP2: has physical form: E55 Type (including material) (defined form of items, or “digital”)
CLP43: defines dimension: E54 Dimension
CLP57: number of parts: E60 number (physical parts, or files is digital)
I'll send scope note soon!
Posted by Martin on 3/6/2019
Here my suggestion for a new scope note for "CPL2". 'CPL2' itself should be replaced by an adequate 'R' number:
CLP2 has physical form (is physical form of)
Domain: F3 Manifestation Product Type
Range: E55 Type
Scope note: This property associates an instance of F3 Manifestation with an instance of E55 Type describing the kind of physical form foreseen for the exemplars carrying this F3 Manifestation. In case the F3 Manifestation is intended to be used and distributed in digital form, the property should describe the form in which a physical copy can be obtained. In case the F3 Manifestation is an abstraction of a singleton item, the property describes the actual physical form the F3 Manifestation is abstracted from. This logical inference is an induction along the path that can be modelled as: F3 Manifestation R7i has example F5 Item P2 has type: E55 Type.
It can happen that a given exemplar, or subset of exemplars, originally produced, or intended to be produced, with that characteristic, accidentally lacks it. This fact should be recorded as a property of F5 Item, and not of F3 Manifestation.
Examples: The sound recording entitled ‘The Glory (????) of the human voice’, identified by label and label number ‘RCA Victor Gold Seal GD61175’, containing recordings of musical works performed by Florence Foster Jenkins (F3) CLP2 has physical form Compact Disc (E55)
Posted by Pat on 10/6/2019
I'm attaching the little bit of file cleaning I have managed to do.
- Updated mapping from LRMer taking the notes from the March meeting and the latest full file into account. There are still some questions in my mind, but I could just have missed something.
- Table starting with all classes and properties defined in FRBRoo 2.4 indicating what our decision about them is (and the meeting it was taken). Again I might have missed something, and sometimes one decision looks like it should have other consequences but I didn't see them in the notes.
Posted by Trond on 10/6/2019
I have also assembled a diagram. Posted it on the arm-list but maybe did not get through yet.
The LRMoo.svg file should display in most browsers.
Also you may find the svg file downloaded here
Posted by Martin on 11/6/2019
Here more proposed scope notes for the redefined CLP properties:
CLP43 defines dimension (is defined for):
Domain: F3 Manifestation
Range: E54 Dimension
Scope note: This property associates an instance of F3 Manifestation with an instance of E54 Dimension characterizing aspects of the symbolic content, such as word counts, or of the physical form foreseen for the exemplars carrying this F3 Manifestation, such as number of pages. In case the F3 Manifestation is an abstraction of a singleton item, the property may describe dimensions of the actual physical form the F3 Manifestation is abstracted from. This logical inference is an induction along the path that can be modelled as: F3 Manifestation R7i has example F5 Item P2 has type: E55 Type.
It can happen that a given exemplar, or subset of exemplars, originally produced, or intended to be produced, with that characteristic, accidentally lacks it. This fact should be recorded as a property of F5 Item, and not of F3 Manifestation.
Examples: The publication entitled ‘Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: final report’, published by K. G. Saur in 1998, identified by ISBN ‘3-598-11382-X’ (F3) CLP43 defines dimension height (E54): P90 has value ‘24’ (E60) and P91 has unit ‘cm’ (E58)
The jigsaw puzzle entitled ‘Map of the New York city subway system’, designed by Stephen J. Voorhies and released around 1954 by the Union Dimes Savings Bank (F3) CLP43 defines dimension length and height (E54) P3 has note ‘46 x 29 cm’ (E62)
CLP46 defines material part (defines part for)
Domain: F3 Manifestation
Range: F3 Manifestation
Scope note: This property associates an instance of F3 Manifestation which prescribes that all its physical exemplars will contain as separatable parts an exemplar of the associated instance of F3 Manifestation. In case the F3 Manifestation is intended to be used and distributed in digital form, the property should describe the form in which a physical copy can be obtained. In case the F3 Manifestation is an abstraction of a singleton item, the property describes the actual physical form the F3 Manifestation is abstracted from. This logical inference is an induction along the path that can be modelled as: F3 Manifestation R7i has example F5 Item P2 has type: E55 Type.
Examples: The publication product identified by ISBN ‘0618260587’ and consisting of a 3-volume edition of J.R.R. Tolkien’s ‘The Lord of the rings’ (F3) CLP46 defines material part the publication product identified by ISBN ‘0618260595’ and consisting of an edition of J.R.R Tolkien’s ‘The two towers’ (F3)
The publication product issued by Deutsche Grammophon in 1998 and consisting of a recording of Richard Wagner’s ‘Der fliegende Holländer’ as performed in 1991 by Plácido Domingo, Cheryl Studer et al., and conducted by Giuseppe Sinopoli (F3) CLP46 defines material part the publication product consisting of printed programme notes and libretto with French and English translations (F3)
CLP57 defines number of parts
Domain: F3 Manifestation Product Type
Range: E60 Number
Scope note: This property associates an instance of F3 Manifestation with an instance of E60 Number, which denotes the number of physical units all exemplars of that publication should consist of. In case the F3 Manifestation is intended to be used and distributed in digital form, the property should describe the form in which a physical copy can be obtained. In case the F3 Manifestation is an abstraction of a singleton item, the property describes the actual physical form the F3 Manifestation is abstracted from. This logical inference is an induction along the path that can be modelled as: F3 Manifestation R7i has example F5 Item P2 has type: E55 Type.
Examples: The jigsaw puzzle entitled ‘Map of the New York city subway system’, designed by Stephen J. Voorhies and released around 1954 by the Union Dimes Savings Bank (F3) CLP57 defines number of parts 76 (E60)
The publication entitled ‘History of costume: in slides, notes, and commentaries’ by Jeanne Button, Patricia Quinn Stuart, and Stephen Sbarge, released by Slide Presentations (New York) ca. 1975 (F3) CLP57 should have number of parts 1,491 (E60) [Number of physical units of the exemplar held by the Gelman Library of the George Washington University, as observed by a cataloguer from the Gelman Library of the George Washington University when he/she catalogued that particular exemplar and recorded the statement: ‘1,491 slides in 14 slide trays + 6 ring binders in cases (30 x 29 cm.)’]
In the 44th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 37th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig continued the discussion about the harmonization of LRM and FRBRoo. The decisions and the assigned HWs are here. The new draft version of LRMoo- FRBRoo v5, is here.
Paris, June 2019
Posted by Pat on 21/10/2019
Hello Chryssoula and all,
Here I am, quite last minute, with some homework related to issue 360, LRMoo.
I have some proposed scope notes for properties with missing scope notes (R68 inspired by, and a new one for representative expression attributes), a revised version of the 4 properties taken from the former CLP, and finally to discuss placement of examples in R10 vs the new R67.
I know there are still some missing examples for classes, I hope to have something by the time we get there on the agenda.
I have also attached a first draft of a document relating what happened from FRBRoo v.2.4 to LRMoo. I propose this as a new section in the document, instead of having all the deprecated classes and properties remain in the text.
I have been doing some general file cleaning, but it is still not complete, so I will continue it, and put in the decisions from this meeting.
See you all on Tuesday.
In the 45th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 38th FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed the HWs about the following properties and examples
- R68 is inspiration for (was inspired by) – HW: GB is to ponder on possible ramifications for the model if this proposal is accepted.
- Examples for R10 vs. R67
- R10 has member (is member of)
- R67 has part (forms part of) -HW: PLB should go over the examples for symphonies that have been revised.
- R69 specifies physical for (is specified physical form of)
- R70 specifies dimension (is specified dimension of)
- R71 specifies material part (is specified material part for) - to add an example of a digital object distributed on many physical copies
- R72 specifies number of parts (is the specified number of parts for)New proposal for Rn to map LRM attribute LRM-E2-A2 Rn takes representative attribute form (bears representative attribute for)
the discussion and the decisions taken can be found here
Heraklion, October 2019
Posted by Pat on 17/2/2020
Here are the files we should use for next week's SIG meeting.
I have identified 12 topics that we should address (in the file Issue 360 topics for SIG Feb 2020) and listed them in order of importance. For some, homework is done and needs to be reviewed, for some we need to discuss. I hope to still have time to prepare some more homework such as missing examples, and prepare some files specific to each topic so that we can discuss each one without distractions.
The file FRBRoo transition to LRMoo is the latest version of attempting to account for the disposition of all the classes and properties in FRBRoo 2.4 and what has happened to them. In the second column, if the element is deprecated, I tried to work out what its substitute would be. Some are still vague and I'd appreciate feedback on whether this is correct and useful. If this is useful, I would propose that the first 2 columns appear as section 5 in the main model definition document.
Finally the file LRM-FRBRoo_V0.6(PR) is the main file. I have done a complete editorial pass, implementing previous SIG minutes, accepting changes and doing file cleaning, and it stands as a consistent version. I have integrated homework (in pink). In yellow, things to still consider. In light red, some problems? Anything in green does not need to be discussed.
As I have not worked on the introduction and overview, I have for the moment taken out the old ones as they were distracting. The ER-OO mapping will need to be inserted once we check it again. The class and property hierarchies could be reworked now. The lists of referred to CRM classes and properties need to be checked. What I have not checked is whether deprecated CRMbase elements still appear.
I hope that after this SIG we will be able to circulate the next version to the IFLA Review Group members for their first comments.
In the 46th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 39th FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed the broad topics that PR had organized the LRMoo issues in. A summary of the decisions reached per topic can be found below. For more details, see linked file.
Topic 1: Aggregation/containers.
- F16 Container Work deprecated, meronymic relations to be expressed through properties
- a specific reference to aggregations/containers to appear in the Model Overview section of the LRMoo definition
- Rxx uses expression [D: F1, R: F2] to be relabelled: Rxx uses expression from (has expression used in) [D: F1, R: F2]
HW: PR to provide a scope note for the new property
- Rxx incorporates external expression (is external expression incorporated in) [D: F2, F2]: discussion re. what its domain should be was inconclusive
- Rxx has elaboration: new scope note
- R67 has part: new scope note
- Rnn was remembered in (contains memory of) [D: F28, R: F2] (originally Pxx has memorization in): new label and scope note, isA P67i is referred to by
HW: MR to come up with new examples,
- R20 recorded: underwent editing
Topic 3: F25 Performance Plan (deprecated)
- R25 deprecated: migration path P33 used specific technique [D: E7, R: E29]
- alternative to E29: socE2 Activity Plan
Topic 4: properties onnected to F26 and F21 (both deprecated)
- R21 created: deprecated (examples moved to R17)
- R22 created a realization: deprecated (examples moved to R19)
- R19 created a realization: Domain set to F28
Topic 5: reproduction properties
- F33 Reproduction Event isA F30 Manifestation Creation
- F33 new example
- reinstate and edit R30 (domain & range the same as Rnn reproduced publication, which will be discarded)
HW: AF and FM to find examples regarding externalizations of instances of F2 Expression from Antiquity, in order to illustrate how authorship is established in Antiquity.
Topic 6: F54 Utilized Informaton Carrier
- F54: deprecated, its scope note moved to F5 Item
- classes and properties linked to F54 need to be reexamined (linked to F5 instead)
- not to be introduced to CRMdig.
Topic 7: new examples for R10 and R17 -HW by PLB. Edited and accepted.
Topic 8: R36 superproperty?
- it is a shortcut. Instead of declaring it a superproperty, it should be declared a shortcut.
Athens, February 2020
Posted by Pat on 10/03/2021
Here is the HW for the issue 360
In the 49th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 42nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, PR informed the SIG that an IFLA namespace is available for FRBRoo (v2.2) and LRMer (https://www.iflastandards.info/). It was decided that an rdf for LRMoo should be produced by incormporating a core set of elements that are decided upon(given that the IFLA namespace can be used).
Furthermore, the sig went through HW presented by PR.
- Properties modified:
- R3 realized, (HW: PR to fic the property labels and referred classes in the examples)
- R18 created
- R26 produced things of type
- R27 materialized
- Classes modified: F32
The details of the decisions can be found here.
Points to be discussed for LRMoo (list by Pat) - June 2nd, 2021
I have made a list of the point related to LRMoo that we need to bring to the SIG for discussion. I am working on the background documents to go with all these things. And also a cleaned up LRMoo document (0.7).
There are still some structural points. It would be great to get to them all during this SIG. I think that will need quite a good time slot, a day or 2 half-days. I don't know what else is going to be ready for discussion.
Will have more documents for you next week.
Classes, and related properties
- F5 Item: change its superclass from E18 Physical Thing to E24 Physical Human-Made Thing
- F30 Manifestation Creation: rewording of scope note (clarification)
- F34 Controlled Vocabulary: propose to deprecate (use F2 if appropriate F1 exists)
- R34 has validity period: domain is F34, propose to deprecate
- F35 Nomen Use Statement: propose to deprecate, use F12 Nomen
- R32 is warranted by: deprecate
- R37 states as nomen: deprecate
- R38 refers to thema: deprecate
- R55 has nomen form: deprecate
- R36, R54: modify domain to F12 (from F35), and modify scope note
- R56: modify domain and range to F12, modify scope note
- R35 is specified by: modify domain to F12, range to F2 (from F34), modify scope note
- Rnn has specialisation: deprecate (that is, never create after all)
- R74 uses expression of, R75 incorporates: assign numbers, approve scope note and examples (for the first time)
- R20 and R65: superproperty statements
- R69-R72: superproperties for former class properties
- LRMoo class and property hierarchies (revised, including proposed deprecations)
- Aligned class hierarchy: new format
- Aligned property hierarchy
Referred to CIDOC CRM classes: revised, is this complete?
- New paragraph page 10, Section 2.2 Naming Conventions, re: numbering policy for LRMoo.
Post by Pat Riva (16 June 2021)
Just a heads up that homework for LRMoo is posted in the Google drive in a directory for Issue 360, and can be seen here:
There are a number of sub-parts to be discussed. The hope is that everything that is structural can be addressed.
A quick summary of the most significant points:
- F5 Item: propose to change the superclass
- F34 Controlled Vocabulary, F35 Nomen Use Statement, propose depreciation, and thus review of related properties (some propose depreciation, others moved)
- Approve scope notes for new properties R74 uses expression of and R75 incorporates
- Determine correct superproperties for the remaining ones that don't have them
- F30 Manifestation Creation: this is just improving the wording of the scope note for clarification
The most important files are present, but a couple more are on their way and will be added to the directory.
In the 50th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 43nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the SIG went through the list of topics brought to everyone's attention by PR.
- F5 Item (change in superclass [E24] and reformulation of the scope note to capture the fact)
- F30 Manifestation Creation (reformulation of scope note to increase legibility)
- R4 embodies (reformulation of scope note, change in quantification)
- Keep F34 Controlled Vocabulary and R34 has validity period [for the moment]
- Deprecate F35 Nomen Use Statement (implications for the model documented in supplementary file)
The decisions and details of discussion can be found here.
In the 51st CIDOC CRM & 44th FRBRoo SIG meeting, PR walked SIG members through HW prepared for LRMoo.
The classes and properties discussed were:
R56 is related to
R36 uses script conversion
R35 is specified by
R74 uses expression of
R69 specifies physical form
R70 specifies dimension
R72 specifies number of parts
R71 specifies material part
Rnn has elaboration/specialization
F28 Expression Creation
For a summary of the decisions and the list of HW see the attached document
In the 52nd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 45th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting; PR walked the SIG members through the sub-topics identified in the context of producing an LRMoo stable version. Subtopics discussed fall under two broad categories, namely:
(a) Review of examples
- R35 is specified by (specifies)
- R8 combines (is combined form)
- R69 specifies physical form (is specified physical form of)
- Review of examples relating to major classes (F1 Work, F2 Expression, F3 Manifestation, F5 Item) to ensure they represent typical situations and are considered relevant
(b) Model modifications refer to classes & properties listed below
- F5 Item (revise scope note)
- F27 Work Conception/Fnn Work Creation
- F28 Expression Creation
- Rnn is derivative of (has derivative) [D: F2 Expression, R: F2 Expression]
- R18 created (was created by) [D: F28, R: F5]
The details of the proposals, their discussion and any ensuing decisions can be found here.
Post by Pat Riva (8 Mar 2022) [E-VOTE]
Following the discussion of F27 during SIG 52 in February, further work on revised scope notes for F27 and R16 was completed. It is presented here for an e-vote.
This vote is in 2 parts: a-F27; b-R16
Please vote Yes to accept the revised scope notes, or No to not accept them. If voting no, please explain. I will summarize the results to the list on March 20.
a) Revised scope note for class F27, renamed as Work Creation
This class comprises activities by which instances of F1 Work come into existence. An instance of F27 Work Creation can serve to document the period a work was coming into existence and the circumstances of it, when these are known.
An instance of F27 Work Creation marks the initial creation of an instance of F1 Work through expressions or other externalizations that are sufficiently elaborated so that the characteristic conceptual identity of the work could be recognised as existing.
In many cases this will coincide with the first known complete externalisation of an expression of the work. In other cases, the initial creation of an instance of F1 Work may be inferred from multiple, or later, expressions or other forms of evidence. For instance, commissioning of a work may explicitly be agreed on after the presentation of an already complete and detailed elaboration of the work that was not made public. Performances may be prior to written expressions, as in the case of Shakespeare’s works.
The work, as an intellectual construction, may evolve from its initial creation onwards, until the last known expression of it.
An instance of E39 Actor with which a work is associated through the chain of properties F1 Work. R16i was created by: F27 Work Creation. P14 carried out by: E39 Actor corresponds to the notion of the “creator” of the work.
-For comparison, the current scope note of F27
This class comprises beginnings of evolutions of works.
An instance of F27 Work Conception marks the initiation of the creation of an instance of F1 Work. The work, as an intellectual construction, evolves from this point on, until the last known expression of it. An instance of E39 Actor with which a work is associated through the chain of properties F1 Work. R16i was initiated by: F27 Work Conception. P14 carried out by: E39 Actor corresponds to the notion of the “creator” of the work. In the case of commissioned works, it is not the commissioning that is regarded as the work conception, but the acceptance of the commission.
This event does not always correlate with the date assigned in common library practice to the work, which is usually a later event (such as the date of completion of the first clean draft).
In addition, F27 Work Conception can serve to document the circumstances that surrounded the appearance of the original idea for a work, when these are known.
b) Revised scope note for property R16, renamed "created (was created by)"
-Revised scope note:
This property associates the initial creation of a work and the instance of F1 Work that was created.
- Current scope note of R16
This property associates the first conception of a work and the instance of F1 Work itself that ensued from a given initial idea.
It marks the origin of the causality chain that results in a work’s coming into existence.
Post by Maja Zumer (9 Mar 2022) [E-VOTE F27, R16]
Yes to all.
Post by Martin Doerr (9 Mar 2022) [E-VOTE F27; R16]
YES to all.
Post by Øyvind (11 Mar 2022) [E-VOTE F27; R16]
YES to all.
Post by Pat Riva (20 Mar 2022) -result of the evote for F27; R16:
As of today I have received 6 Yes votes (both on the list and sent directly to me) and no negative votes. I take this as sufficient for the e-vote and will integrate the changes into the LRMoo working document.
Thanks to all.
Post by Pat Riva (20 March 2022) [EVOTE R26 produced things of type (was produced by)]
Continuing with issues partially discussed but not actually voted at SIG#52 in February.
In the document for Issue 360: HW: F28 Expression Creation, we did not complete the fourth part, relating to deprecating LRMoo property R26 produced things of type (was produced by).
R26 links the F32 Carrier Production Event directly to E99 Product Type.
This is superfluous because property R27 materialized (was materialized by) links F32 Carrier Production Event to F3 Manifestation, and the F3 that is produced via F32 is necessarily multiply instantiated as E99. There is no need to link F32 directly to E99.
Therefore, the proposal is
(1) to deprecate R26.
(2) to delete the last sentence of F32 scope note (highlighted in italics) which refers to R26, for consistency
*Please vote Yes to accept the proposal to deprecate R26 (and to remove the sentence referring to it from the F32 scope note), or No to reject the proposal. If voting No, please explain. I will summarize the results to the list on April 3.
For reference, the relevant scope notes follow.
R26 produced things of type (was produced by)
Domain: F32 Carrier Production Event
Range: E99 Product Type
Subproperty of: E12 Production. P186 produced thing of product type (is produced by): E99 Product Type
Scope note: This property associates an instance of F32 Carrier Production Event directly with the instance of E99 Product Type that is the prototype displaying the features that all of the F5 Items produced should display. This property is used in preference to R27 materialized (was materialized by) when the instance of F3 Manifestation that is materialized by the instance of F32 Carrier Production Event is also an instance of E99 Product Type.
R27 materialized (was materialized by)
Domain: F32 Carrier Production Event
Range: F3 Manifestation
Subproperty of: E7 Activity. P16 used specific object (was used for): E70 Thing
Scope note: This property associates an instance of F32 Carrier Production Event with the set of signs provided by the publisher to be carried by all of the produced items (i.e., the instances of F5 Item) and any other physical features foreseen as integral to the instance of F3 Manifestation that is materialised.
F32 Carrier Production Event
Subclass of: E12 Production
Scope note: This class comprises activities that result in instances of F5 Item coming into existence. Both the production of a series of physical objects (printed books, scores, CDs, DVDs, CD-ROMs, etc.) and the creation of a new copy of a file on an electronic carrier are regarded as instances of F32 Carrier Production Event.
Typically, the production of copies of a publication (no matter whether it is a book, a sound recording, a DVD, a cartographic resource, etc.) strives to produce items all as similar as possible to a prototype that displays all the features that all the copies of the publication should also display, which is reflected in the property R27 materialized: F3 Manifestation. In the case where the instance of F3 Manifestation that is materialized is also an instance of E99 Product Type, the property R26 produced things of type is the preferred method to associate the instance of F32 Carrier Production Event directly with the instance of E99 Product Type.
Post by Maja Zumer (23 March 2022) [E-VOTE: LRMooR26]
Post by Martin Doerr (23 March 2022) [E-VOTE: LRMooR26]
I vote YES.
Post by Daria Hookk (23 March 2022) [E-VOTE: LRMooR26]
Post by Oyvind Eide (24 March 2022) [E-VOTE: LRMooR26]
According to the output of the evote (Issue 591), F29 Recording Event and its associated properties R20 recorded (was recorded by), and R65 recorded aspects of (has aspects recorded through) will be deprecated in LRMoo
According to the outcome of the evote for issue 592,
- F56 Externalization Event will be deprecated.
- Its property Rnn was remebered in (is memory of) will not be implemented
- F31 Performance will be a direct class of E7 Activity (as it were in FRBRoo v2.4)
- F56 will be removed from the list of superclasses of F28 Expression Creation [F28 will be a subclass of E12 Production and E65 Creation)
- Rnn was remembered in will be removed from the superproperties of R17 created (was created by) [D;F28, R:F2], leaving just P94 has created (was created by) [D;E65, R:E28].
This is to inform Issue 360
According to the outcome of the evote for issue 589, the scope notes of
were updated in the document.
In the 53rd CIDOC CRM & 46th FRBRoo Sig meeting PR gave an outline of the current state of the issue:
The results of the evotes have been incorporated in the current version of the LRMoo. Of these, 3 were recorded as specific issues: 589, 591, 592 –they are formally closed.
- Table of quantifications, FOL axioms, (.1) properties, and declaration of new super/sub-properties for LRMoo properties. (HW by PR & MZ). This falls under Issue 590: Review of properties (quantifications). See there for the decisions.
- veto by MD on deprecating R10 has member. This falls under Issue 593. See there for the decisions.
- Proposal to introduce a new property Rnn included memory, connecting F28 to E7, by means of which to replace R20. This falls under issue 594. See there for the decisions.
- The Work, Expression, Manifestation, and Item examples for LRM are still open for review. Sig members are kindly asked to advise on their content.
In the 54th CIDOC CRM & 47th FRBR/LRMoo SIG meeting, Pat Riva gave an outline of the state of the issue.
Topics discussed pertain to:
- the superclass of F3 Manifestation (request to keep it disjoint from F2 Expression) and implications
- new properties mapping to LRM-R20 & LRM-R29
- new property to map LRM-E2-A2 Representative Expression Attitude
- Relabelling class/properties to match IFLA LRM labels
F3 Manifestation superclass
The proposal was to keep F3 Manifestation disjoint from F2 Expression (as in the IFLA LRM).
- Keep F2 Expression and F3 Manifestation disjoint, like in LRM-ER (make them both direct subclasses of E73 Information Object) –F2 standing for content and F3 for container of the content.
- In a similar vein, modify the superclass relation of F30 Manifestation Creation (declare it a subclass of E65 Creation and E12 Production, instead of F28 Expression Creation)
New properties mapping to LRM-R20 and LRM-R29
The proposal was to introduce semantically equivalent properties to LRM-R20 accompanies or complements, LRM-R29 has alternate, rather than associating them with very high-level, underspecific properties.
- These properties cannot be exactly mapped to anything existing in the CRM universe. In that sense, new properties have to be introduced to LRMoo.
- There is no requirement for CMR-family models’ properties to be declared subproperties of CRMbase (either directly or through inheritance). In that sense, it suffices that R77 and R88 are listed under their direct superproperties in LRMoo (insofar as they do have superproperties in LRMoo). The long paths given are commonsensical enough, but the proposed properties are much more specific.
- Using a long path from the IFLA LRM to LRMoo mapping as a superproperty, is it considered good practice? To be considered again.
- The concept of shortcut also falls short of this description (R78), because in the CRM universe, the long path -shortcut relation implicates that the shortcut is a consequence of the long path. Here it is not the case, the shortcuts are much more specific than the long paths –should be dubbed an “Inverse shortcut” instead. Ignore this for the time being, but it needs to be checked in LRMoo and other extensions.
- Introduce two properties (R77 accompanies or complements, and R78 has alternate) in LRMoo that exactly map to LRM-R20 accompanies or complements and LRM-R29 has alternate, respectively. Definitions here.
- Start a new issue to check inverse shortcuts in the CRM (base and family models). Insofar as we mention inverse shortcuts in the properties’ declarations, we need to define the concept -and check if it applies elsewhere too.
New property to map LRM-E2-A2 Representative Expression Attribute
Given that the mapping for LRM-E2-A2 Representative Expression Attributes to LRMoo R73 takes representative attribute from does not provide with equivalent semantics, the proposal was to introduce a property that points directly from F1 Work to E55 Type: R79 has representative expression attribute (is representative expression attribute of), [D: F1, R:E55].
- This construct relates to issue 556 (Content of minimal vocabularies restricting the CRM types) and the type hierarchies that we need to develop.
- There are some kinds of expression closely related to any given work (they are dependent on its type). Their presence in the documentation of the work is not necessary however. In the absence of value for such an attribute, we do not fail to characterize the respective work as being of a certain type.
- Reconsider the relation btw R79 and the path F1.R73:F2.P2:E55 (etc.). If it is a long path -shortcut relation.
- Reconsider if it needs a .1 property as well.
Decision: Admit property in LRMoo. Property definition here.
Relabelling class/properties to match IFLA LRM labels:
- F32 Carrier Production Event: change to F32 Item Production Event
- R5 has component (is component of): change to R5 has part (forms part of)
- R7 is materialization of (is materialized in): change to R7 exemplifies (is exemplified by)
- R33 has content: change to R33 has string
Discussion: R5 should evoke the semantics of its superproperty (P148 has component). Also, two ways of splitting any information object: randomly selected fragments (rendered by a has part-like property) vs. meaningful, structural parts (rendered by a has component-like property). R5 explicitly refers to the latter case, and its label should evoke its semantics.
Proceed with the relabeling as proposed, except for R5 has component (is component of), whose label will be retained
Rome, September 2022