During the 59th CIDOC CRM SIG meeting, the group resolved to start a new issue, where to document the textual descriptions of the diagrams found under Functional Overview, thereby increasing their readability. The ones we now offer are underinformative/underspecific to a great extent.
The issue stems from 628
Plovdiv, September 2024
In the 60th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 & 53rd FRBR/LRMoo SIG, GB gave an outline of the issue. The original diagrams under “Functional Overview” were specifically designed for museum documentation –they represent functional units for museum processes. Even though CIDOC CRM is by design capable to handle museum documentation, it is not necessarily limited to that, and can assume a much larger perspective.
Still, they lack descriptions: each diagram comes with a label and a list of referenced classes and properties that are not otherwise contextualized.
The diagrams were derived from the original CIDOC reference model Information Groups (1997) on which CIDOC CRM is based.
N.b.:In order to provide descriptions to the diagrams one must first establish whether they are part of the standard itself (are they normative to an extent) or if they’re meant to be used as examples.
HW: GB, CEO, OE volunteered to look at the document and the diagrams and determine what needs to be added or changed in terms of descriptions etc.
Bern, April 2025
Post by George Bruseker (9 September 2025)
I have followed up this issue, connnecting with Nicholas Crofts to ask about some of the work that has been done previously on this. He was also able to share an earlier document worked on by himself, Martin and others in creating the original diagrams.
My understanding to date, evolving, is that the original purpose of the diagrams that are now under the 'use and learn; section was actually to make a solid connection to museum practice and the existing information standards of ICOM Documentation (nee CIDOC).
This is the standard in 1995:
https://cidoc.mini.icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/03/guide…
And at some point it even gets broken down into suggested fields, which we find in the document on the link you share here:
CIDOC reference model Information Groups (1997)
But as a generation of learners of CIDOC CRM can attest, I believe, the diagrams have since evolved to also play an important role in learning about the ontology itself. So it seems like they are now called upon to do a dual function. As we have been working to update them we have been updating them more towards making them towards the standard as it is, but haven't been focussed on connecting back to the original CIDOC information groups etc.
I think this poses a question, which I think the group needs to consider and answer together.
The diagrams we are working on now, are they for
a) explaining and learning the CRM,
b) connecting the CRM to the CIDOC Information Categories
or
c) both.
My opinion is that they are uncomfortably for both right now.
I wonder if we shouldn't create a set of diagrams which are just for learning the ontology (maybe these are fewer and more targeted) and we separate this function from the CIDOC information categories question.
For the b functionality, representing CIDOC information categories, I think we should connect with ICOM Documentation and find out if this would be a priority and an interest. We could try to make this a collaboration with other committees and museums. In effect this is just a semantic modelling exercise of fields, at which we are very good now and for which many tools exist to create the data. The meaningful thing here though might be to really connect up with active documentation work, so that ICOM Documentation can illustrate the categories in action and those categories are correctly linked up to the best present state of CIDOC CRM ontology and semantic modelling practice.
This is what I have to report. I think it's quite interesting and worth a discussion at the next SIG and also of course here on the list.
Best,
George
Post by Christian-Emil Ore (9 September 2025)
I support the a as the highest priority. The categories in b stem from the CICOC relational data model presented in Stavanger in 1995 . The model was found to be too complex and resulted in the work with CRM.
Best,
Chr-Emil
Post by George Bruseker (29 September 2025)
Hi Christian Emil,
I agree a is important, but I took a crack at b too.
For the documentation of the information groups considered as an information standard, Takin is making an alignment to CIDOC CRM and documenting them as data patterns on the Zellij semantic data pattern management tool. We will be able to share this work by the time of the meeting and seek your feedback on correctness, and what we might want to do with it.
Best,
George
Post by George Bruseker (7 October 2025)
Dear all,
So here is Takin's first iteration of the mapping of the Information Categories to CIDOC CRM.
We have mapped the original document (which I think was never fully complete) to CIDOC CRM using Linked.Art as the target model.
We used the SRDM method for documenting the patterns into models.
https://openhumanitiesdata.metajnl.com/articles/10.5334/johd.282
I think this could be a very interesting project to take further in connection with the rest of CIDOC connecting with DSWG and Linked.Art at the very least.
Anyhow, I can report on this work if there is time.
BEst,
George
Post by Christian-Emil Ore (7 October 2025)
Dear George,
Excellent! Also, my impression is that the work on Information Categories was never completed.
Best,
Christian-Emil
Post by Christian-Emil Ore (9 October 2025)
Dear all,
I have read https://cidoc-crm.org/Resources/cidoc-reference-model-information-groups and compared the diagrams with the defintions in CRMbase 7.3.1. It is interesting reading and I see where the basic structures in CRM anno 2001 came from. The document "cidoc-reference-model-information-groups" is 28 years old, and many of its diagram are not in harmony with the current model. Still, it can be used as a checklist if we want to make a new set of diagrams. The text accompanying the diagrams are somewhat outdated.
Best,
Christian-Emil