Issue 619: Delete Unnecessary / Incorrect Classes of CRMdig
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 classes. The outcomes of this discussion and evote will inform Issue 547
Post by George Bruseker (1 November 2022) [call for an evote]
Dear all,
I propose the deletion of the following classes 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 class can be modelled using a more generic pattern from CRMbase or CRMdig without loss of semantic valence
2) the class 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 classes 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:
D21 Person Name: Obvious reasons. We already have a general E41 Appellation class and we do not specialize name classes endlessly but use the p2 has type formulation.
D23 Room: Convenience class that is in fact not that convenient: use E53 Place
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 classes.
There are other problematic classes which need to be reanalyzed before they are considered for deletion or reworking. Separate issues will be raised for each of these as necessary.
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
Post by Martin Doerr (6 November 2022)
YES
Post by Christian Weiss (7 November 2022)
YES
Post by Martijn van Leusen (6 November 2022)
YES
Post by George Bruseker (1 December 2022)
Dear all,
The deadline for voting on this issue has passed. There were 7 votes in total. 7 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