Post by Akihiro Kameda (5 October 2025)
Dear CIDOC CRM Editorial Team,
My name is Akihiro Kameda. I am working on the Japanese translation of the CIDOC CRM documentation. I have now reached the “About Types” section, and I’m pleased to report that the introductory sections are also nearing completion. While translating “About Types,” I came across a few points that I would like to clarify and, if helpful, propose minor edits for. I’m sharing them below for your consideration. All references are to version 7.3.1.
(1) On the paragraph that begins “In addition to being an interface to external thesauri and classification systems …”
Given that P94 has created is the only property whose domain or range is E28 Conceptual Object, the first two sentences appear to address P94 has created (or higher-level inherited properties). The next sentence, however, shifts to P135 created type (a subproperty of P94 has created) with E83 Type Creation as its domain. This mixes a discussion of superclass-level inheritance with a property that properly belongs under E83 Type Creation, and the flow becomes unclear.
To improve coherence while keeping the bridge from the previous paragraph, I suggest rewriting the opening of this paragraph as follows:
```
In addition to being an interface to external thesauri and classification systems, the CIDOC CRM can also record information about instances of E55 Type. A characteristic part of such information is the history of a type. Using E83 Type Creation together with P135 created type, the process by which a type is established—i.e., the rigorous scholarly or scientific procedure that defines a type and assigns its name—can be modelled in the CIDOC CRM. In some cases ...
```
(2) Clarifying that E55 Type is an ordinary class (not a metaclass)
With the proposed re-organization of the preceding paragraph, there is a risk that the important point “E55 Type is an ordinary class” (i.e., not a metaclass; see https://www.mail-archive.com/crm-sig@ics.forth.gr/msg00805.html ) is no longer evident. I suggest making this explicit where universals are discussed—namely, in the final sentence of the opening paragraph of About Types—by adding the following clarification:
```
Instances of E55 Type represent concepts (universals) in contrast to instances of E41 Appellation, which are used to name instances of CIDOC CRM classes. Note that E55 Type is not a metaclass but an ordinary first-order class; accordingly, its instances are universals but not ontology classes.
```
(I realize this proposal may be a bit too technical for the general readership...)
To maintain a smooth transition to the property-level description that follows, the next sentence can begin:
```
To associate particulars with E55 Type, the CIDOC CRM provides two basic properties that describe ...
```
(3) On the life-sciences terminology (“original element”)
This is a minor point, but in the sentence:
```
This is very central to research in the life sciences, where a type would be referred to as a “taxon,” the type description as a “protologue,” and the exemplary specimens as “original element” or “holotype”.
```
I suspect “original element” may be unintended here. In botanical nomenclature, the relevant term is “original material” (ICN; formerly ICBN, see https://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/pages/main/art_9.html ). Original material is the set of elements associated with the protologue and includes the holotype; where no holotype was designated, a lectotype is chosen from the original material, and if original material is lacking a neotype may be designated.
To keep the text accurate without over-specifying edge cases, I would suggest the following options:
- First (preferred, concise): ... and the exemplary specimen basically as a “holotype.
- Second (more precise): ... and the exemplary basis as “original material” (including, where applicable, the holotype; or lectotype/neotype as appropriate under the ICN, for example).
```
----
I hope these suggestions are helpful. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Post by Martin Doerr -- 21 October 2025 (p.c.)
Dear Akihiro Kameda,
I did some research about the "original element". We took the term "original element" from original data from the Clayton Herbarium of the Natural History Museum in London in 2001, in the first automated data transformation experiment to a CRM compatible form
(see http://old.cidoc-crm.org/data_transformations.html).
I assume this term is now obsolete. Thank you for verifying it!
I assume this case should now be called a "syntype". Especially older collections may not yet have a holotype or lectotype assigned. Therefore I like the reference to this case.
I suggest to change the phrase to:
- "This is very central to research in the life sciences, where a type would be referred to as a “taxon,” the type description as a “protologue,” and the exemplary specimens would be defined as “syntype”, “holotype” or by another applicable term (see International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants)"
If you have a biodiversity expert at hand, I'd be glad about his/her opinion.
All the best,
Martin
Post by George Bruseker (27 October 2025)
Here’s a straight forward related article I recently read.
https://medium.com/@sary.jouhara/subclassing-vs-typing-in-ontology-design-666a4292147a