Issue 618: Delete Unnecessary / Incorrect Properties of CRMdig

ID: 
618
Starting Date: 
2022-11-01
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

George Bruseker has been coordinating the CRMdig - PEM harmonisation. As a result, he has proposed a set of changes to CRMdig (mainly class/property deprecations). This thread serves to discuss and vote on the proposal to deprecate a set of CRMdig properties. The outcomes of this discussion and evote will inform Issue 547

Current Proposal: 

Post by George Bruseker (1 November 2022) [call for an evote]

Dear all,

 

I propose the deletion of the following properties of CRMdig. The reason that each should be deleted is listed beside it, but there are two basic, principled reasons for the proposal:

 

1) the property can be modelled using a more generic pattern from CRMbase or CRMdig without loss of semantic valence

2) the property violates a CIDOC CRM modelling principle / best practice, an alternative mode of expressing it already exists using standard modelling in CRM and SHOULD be employed

 

Therefore, if our proposal is done correctly removing all these properties will serve to a) make the model lighter but just as semantically powerful, b) accord with CRM SIG general modelling principles and c) serve better as a middle level domain ontology for its area of scope.

 

Martin Doerr, Rob Sanderson and Nicola Carboni have all contributed over time to this review or properties alongside myself as proposer. Any mistakes being mine.

 

With that as background here are the proposed deletions:

 

Delete: L4 has preferred label: inconsistent with the rest of CRM, redundant to other ontologies

Keep until D11/D9 revision is understood: L20 has created: because D9 is removed (but see also D11)

Keep, not marginal: L24 created logfile: creates a file of type ‘logfile’ (used to separate derivative output from automated provenance reporting.)

Delete: L29 has responsible organization: unnecessary sub property just use p14
Delete: L30 has operator: unnecessary sub property just use p14

Delete: L31 has starting date-time: inconsistent modelling, use time span like everyone else
Delete: L32: has ending date time: inconsistent modelling, use time span like everyone else

Delete: L33: has maker: this property violates event modelling. If it continues to exist then E73 should have ‘has author’ (local project requirements...)

Delete: L34 has contractor: unnecessary sub property of an unnecessary subproperty, use p14
 

Delete: L35 has commissioner: unnecessary sub property, use p14 

 

Delete: L47 has comment: not ontological at all

Delete: L51 has first name: inconsistent non ontological modelling, anathema!
Delete: L52 has last name: see above
Delete: L53 is not uniquely identified by: this is not a way to encode a negation and does not say anything (see also neg properties question)
Delete: L55 has inventory number: this is not ontological, please use standard modelling
Delete: L56 has pixel width: no standard modelling, use dimension
Delete: L57 has pixel height: non standard modelling, use dimension
Delete: L59 has serial number: non standard modelling, use E42

Delete: L61 was on going at: again non standard time modelling for convenience sake

 

This is a first list to which others may be added. At this time, I am happy to propose the above list for deletion as hopefully relatively uncontroversial.

 

You can find the specification for CRMdig here:

https://cidoc-crm.org/crmdig/sites/default/files/CRMdig_v3.2.1.pdf

 

To read more on these properties. 

 

I call a vote now, ending on Nov 11. Please vote by answering YES to this emaill thread if you agree to these deletions or NO. If you vote NO, please indicate if you vote NO to all or if you vote NO to some part of the proposal. 

 

Thanks in advance for your interest and participation.

Best,

 

George

Post by Thanasis Velios (6 November 2022)

YES

Post by Rob Sanderson (6 November 2022)

YES

Thank you for writing this up, George!

Post by Martijn van Leusen (6 November 2022)

YES

Post by Martin Doerr (6 November 2022)

YES

Post by George Bruseker (1December 2022)

Dear all,

The deadline for voting on this issue has passed. There were 5 votes in total. 5 votes were to approve the change. 0 votes were against. Therefore, it would appear the change passes. 

This will be reported to the CRM SIG in the session on the CRMdig which will be held next week in Luxembourg.

Sincerely,

George

Reference to Issues: