Issue 599: Editorial Statuses of the CRMbase and family models
The labels for Document Type and Editorial Status are far from self-explanatory. GB had made a proposal to simplify them for Issue 310. The categories proposed and the guideline he had proposed made sense and were supposed to be put to an e-vote following some minor editing. Subsequently, the Sig decided to merge the issue with 354 (which dealt with the overall workflow in proposing alterations to the model and/or implementation) –October 2020. Since then, no progress has been made, if anything the editorial status component of the issue got completely out of scope.
In the 53rd CIDOC CRM & 46th FRBRoo SIG meeting, the SIG decided was motivated to address the issue of the editorial status of the model from the fact that v7.2 appears as a Published Version, but does not come with an rdfs file or any other encoding.
- V7.2 is superseded by v7.1.2 and v7.2.1 (as indicated by the announcement date).
- “Official versions” are the finalized versions that are submitted to ISO, “Published versions” are stable versions that can be used for implementations.
- The “Editorial Status” label is redundant and the overall statuses need to be reexamined.
- Proposal: Official, Published, Current (i.e., currently maintained), Draft (mainly for proposed models <new extensions that have not been admitted as CRM compatible extensions yet> and for non-stable versions of the CRM.
- Consider issues 310, 354 for drafting commonsensical labels.
HW: team at FORTH to propose something
May 2022
Post by Martin Doerr (6 August 2022)
Dear All,
The approval status of CRM extensions needs updating on the Site. My understanding is that a version number 1.0 onwards reflects approval, regardless whether they are currently updated. This needs checking with the minutes, and possibly new decisions.
Best,
Martin
In the 54th CIDOC CRM & 47th FRBR/LRMoo SIG meeting, Erin informed the SIG about the ISO submission process and Pavlos presented HW by FORTH, regarding the workflow for maintaining CRMbase & CRM-family models and the ensuing statuses to describe CRMbase/family releases.
1) ISO submission process.
The first round of the document has been submitted to ISO for initial formatting and review. Minor corrections (editorial things) are still being performed on the document but the bulk of the work is now completed. The version they have been working on is 7.1.2, which is the version that forms the foundation of the ISO version.
EC & PM advise against v.7.2.1 (or any subsequent version of the 7.2.x branch) mirroring the ISO, as there is new content in there (P199). They also propose that the SIG stop editing the 7.1.x branch, that they take over this version and inform the SIG of any minor changes implemented during the ISO revision process. If the SIG spots some errors too, they should let EC & PM know about it, so that it can be edited in the version that will be submitted to ISO (v7.1.3). CIDOC CRM v7.1.3 will be the “true” foundation for ISO.
The SIG should carry on working on the 7.2.x branch. Any updates on the 7.1.x branch will not be shared through the site until the harmonization btw the ISO version and the community version begins.
2) Maintaining CRMbase versions.
Reorganize the available statuses for CRMbase (Official (ISO Correspondence), Official (Base for ISO submission), Stable, Draft).
Reorganize columns describing Versions of the CRM under Resources (Version, Release Date, Available Documents, Encodings, Status).
For available statuses and column definitions of CRMbase versions, see the attached document.
3) Maintaining CRMfamily versions
Reorganize the available statuses for CRMbase (Stable, Draft).
Reorganize columns describing Versions of the CRM under Resources (Version, Release Date, Available Documents, Encodings, CIDOC-CRM Compatible Version, Status).
For available statuses and column definitions of CRMbase versions, see the attached document.
Discussion points:
Graphics used in each model have to be accessible through their respective version. This applies to CRMbase and all family models alike. They should be in an editable format. This has become an issue for the translation initiative too. To be informed by decisions on where to publish graphics used in each release of the CRM (see issue 596).
Prior to assigning the status “Stable” to any newer version, a check for errors/cycles etc. should be performed (task for FORTH). If there are problems, the version should be labelled “Draft” instead -the editors should be informed of that.
Serialisations should only be provided for Stable versions (i.e., Official versions too).
Overall decision (accepted unanimously):
- CIDOC CRM v.7.1.x stops being edited by the community and passes over exclusively to the ISO group (EC, PM). No updates on this branch appear on the site from now on.
- The SIG continues editing the 7.2.x branch. Any updates (editorial/stylistic) that occur in this version are to inform the version submitted to ISO too.
- Once it has been submitted for ISO approval, version 7.1.3 will become relevant for the harmonization with the version maintained by the SIG.
- The definitions and correspondence to CIDOC releases proposed will substitute the statues description under Resources in the CIDOC CRM site.
In the 55th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 48th FRBR/LRMoo SIG meeting, the SIG reviewed the implementation of previous decisions regarding the editorial statuses of CRMbase and family models.
- The Versions of the CIDOC CRM tab now looks like that. All columns come with short definitions on the top part of the page.
- The versions for extensions of the CRM have been also updated. They can be found under their respective model. For instance, the tab for CRMarchaeo versions looks like that, and the one for FRBR/LRMoo looks like that.
Discussion points:
- FRBRoo Version 2.4 is as official as it gets and should be labelled “Official”. However, given that IFLA does not submit documents to ISO, the current definitions for Official used for CIDOC CRM cannot be applied to FRBRoo.
Decision: Start a new issue (626) about the reformulation of the definition for “Official” status, to cover FRBR/LRMoo
- There are dependencies between family models themselves: (CRMarchaeo, CRMsci), (CRMinf, CRMsci), (CRMtex,CRMinf), (CRMba, CRMarchaeo), (CRMba, CRMsci) that are not declared in the version information (or in the specification documents). This information should be easily accessible. However, this information is not always known. To avoid using together incompatible versions of said models, editors of a CRM extension should add explicit cross-references to other models
Decision: ETs to contact CRM-family model maintainers and collect explicit cross-references to other models, where they are missing. This is to be reported through a new issue (627).
Issue Closed
Belval, December 2022