The issue concerns a proposal by Martin Doerr to review and undo the migration instruction for E13 Attribute accepted by the SIG (see issue 700 for details).
Some of the exchanges are repeated below for more context.
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
Post by Martin Doerr (16 October 2025)
Dear George, all,
Yes indeed, I propose to undo, i.e. expand.
I was away from my e-mail. According to our rules, the homework should have been posted two weeks before the meeting. I had no means to react. I suggest to strictly keep the deadline in the future.
The problem is that scholars seek more historical substance in instances of E19, whereas temporary aggregates are daily practice in museums and scientific laboratories and fieldwork, not talking about theft and auctions.
But temporary aggregates may have much more relevant properties than just being used in an activity, but often undocumented, because the aggregate was not made explicit.
I propose this issue both for clarification but also for an item to be taught in CRM tutorials.
Best,
Martin