In the 60th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 & 53rd FRBR/LRMoo SIG, upon discussing issue 672, the SIG resolved to start a new issue where to define the migration instructions for E13 Attribute Assignment (and subclasses), given that from v7.3.1 and on, all instances of of E13 Attribute Assignment (and subclasses) forms a single activity applied to exactly one object and yielding one value or dimension, which prohibits multiple values or dimensions as the objects of one (condition assessment | measurement | classification | observation, etc.).
This is a major model change, and new migration instructions should be provided for explaining how to bundle single E13 Attribute Assignments (and subclasses) into “cluster activities”.
This particular HW was not assigned to anyone.
Bern, April 2025.
Post by Christian-Emil Ore (8 October 2025)
Dear all,
I have created a document in the Google drive,
see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TGR8ccpWSNcj4ZJZdVqxH_ax3x_jhn5neXy…
with a draft for the migration rule. I put a copy of the draft at the end of this email.
Best,
Christian-Emil
Migration Instructions for E13 Attribute Assignment, subclasses and (sub)properties
In cultural heritage institutions it is common practice to document condition assessment, measurement, classification, observation etc. for groups of objects. This has been reflected in the CRMbase by the quantification many-to-many of the properties P140 assigned attribute to (was attributed by) and P141 assigned (was assigned by) and their subproperties. From v7.3.1 and on, all instances of of E13 Attribute Assignment (and subclasses) forms a single activity applied to exactly one object and yielding one value or dimension, which prohibits multiple values or dimensions as the objects of one instance of E13 Attribute Assignment (condition assessment, measurement, classification, observation, etc.). After the change one has to replace the single instance of E13 Attribute Assignment or subclasses with an instance of E7 Activity as the grouping event and a new instance of E13 Attribute Assignment or subclasses for each of the objects in question. The grouping instance should hold the information about time, place and actor of the original instance of E13 Attribute Assignment and a type indicating the kind of event. Each of the new instances of E13 Attribute Assignment or subclasses should be sub-events, that is connected to the new instance of E7 activity via the property P9 consists of (forms part of)
In the 61st joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 & 54th FRBR/LRMoo SIG, the SIG approved the migration instruction for E13 Attribute Assignment as proposed by CEO. It will appear in the Appendix of CIDOC CRM v7.3.2.
For the details of the proposal and the ensuing points of discussion see here.
Heraklion, October 2025
Post by Martin Doerr 15 October 2025
Dear All,
I'd rather suggest to better group the aggregates as single instances of Physical Object, which corresponds to the way of handling of such "multiple items".
Best,
Martin
Post by Rob Sanderson (15 October 2025)
Conversely, I support Christian-Emil's proposed migration pattern of using an encapsulating event to collect together the attribute assignments. This pattern allows the transitive inclusion within further such higher order events as well, including the typical museum operations such as acquisition, accessioning, conservation, and so on.
Rob
Post by Martin Doerr (15 October 2025)
Dear All,
I suggest a professional approach to this question:
Please look at issue 442 and 520. Please read carefully the scope note of E19.
Temporary aggregates are in no way specific to E13.
In particular for moving objects, but also for exhibition arrangements, conservation etc., physically coherent items can participate in any number of temporary or permanent aggregates.
In 1998, we followed a presentation how the National Museum in Melbourne was completely moved. Vernon made the S/W. Traceability of the temporary aggregates was the major issue.
No reason to regard the aggregation of activities as better. My experience from creating collection management systems is that documenting temporary aggregates is in many cases more reliable. Both solutions should be mentioned, but documenting by temporary aggregates should be in our teaching program, people stumble over it since decades and it is very substantial. E19 scope note could even be enhanced.
Kind regards,
Martin
Post by George Bruseker (16 October 2025)
Dear Martin,
Regarding the professional approach. The SIG voted in favour of the migration instructions. So as of now they are accepted. I believe if you want to undo or modify that decision we would need a new issue to undo it.
If that is indeed your wish, could you please put together a diagram or some other explanatory text that would indicate the alternative you are suggesting to go along with this issue?
I imagine the conclusion of this issue would be that if that is also a useful way of migrating (I don't know because I can't picture what you are suggesting, but I trust very much that it is) then the migration instructions could present the two alternatives and that would be a very satisfactory conclusion to the new issue.
It is often the case that different solutions are needed for different situations.
Best,
George
Post by Christian-Emil Ore (16 October 2025)
Dear all,
In my opinion we should describe both situations. The migration rule I described is not so direct to the change of the quantifications of the E13 properties but describes what may go on in a laboratory or in a cultural heritage institution. The E13 based one is a model of what is seen from the outside e.g. when one sends a box or bag of finds or samples to a laboratory and gets a report back.
A new issue dealing with an extension of the migration rule will be a good idea. It should be possible to do that by a evote.
Best,
Chrstian-Emil