View Source

{excerpt}CIDOC CRM, BMX, LIDO, Mapping...{excerpt}
On this page:

h1. Metadata Standards

[Seeing Standards: A Visualization of the Metadata Universe|].
"Each of the 105 standards listed here is evaluated on its strength of application to defined categories in each of four axes: community, domain, function, and purpose. The strength of a standard in a given category is determined by a mixture of its adoption in that category, its design intent, and its overall appropriateness for use in that category.
The standards represented here are among those most heavily used or publicized in the cultural heritage community, though certainly not all standards that might be relevant are included. A small set of the metadata standards plotted on the main visualization also appear as highlights above the graphic. These represent the most commonly known or discussed standards for cultural heritage metadata."

A treasure-trove of information.
- For every topic of interest, you could spend weeks researching the relevant standards.
- Includes:
-- Poster of visualization (36in x 108in): print it in color from Adobe Acrobat with these settings:
Orientation=landscape, Scaling=Tile large pages, Tile Scale=19%, Overlap=0.05in, No cut marks. This results in 2 pages that you can paste together. (Or try at 40% and paste 4 pages)
The left half is shown below
-- Metadata standard glossary, pamphlet form: 1 para description of each standard
-- Metadata standard glossary, poster form (36in x 41in): you need a very big printer (or very strong glasses ;-) ) to use this
- A bit old (2010, eg only mentions LIDO)
- (!) The major listed Cultural Heritage standard that we don't yet know about is *CCO*


h1. Ontology Engineering

Ontology Engineering is a significant part of the project, although it is not listed as a separate pricing item.
- One of the most important parts of the system are annotations of various objects and parts of objects (eg image areas)
- An object part (eg painting area) can merit to be treated as "almost an object" on its own. Eg I may want to say "these are female hands", relate them to other painters who did similar subjects, identify a different technique or painting style, etc.
- And maybe there is need to annotate other annotations? Eg "X said S on date M, however Y disagreed with S because of T on date N:
- I'm no CRM expert, but is CRM rich enough to express such "Research Findings Ontology"?
- [] standards are cited, but again I am not sure they are enough. An annotation should be able to link to other semantic objects (collection objects, artists, techniques, etc).
- An integrated ontology is needed.

Is CIDOC CRM sufficient as a Research Findings ontology?
- maybe yes, since there entities such as Attribute_Assignment that record who determined what aspect of which object when
- even if not, it can be extended
- BM has some funds for CRM consultancy by Martin Doerr.
- obvious extension to CRM ontology will be the specification of the property P3F.has_note, types of Inscriptions, etc.
- an important addition to CIDOC-CRM will be the annotation ontology, which will extend its Attribute Assignment part.

h1. CRMdig

- Ontology for representing digitization processes, especially in archaeology, developed as part of 3D COFORM.
- included in the CRM conversion tool [], file 3D-COFORM_CRMdig_v2.5.rdfs
- includes entities such as D1.Digital_Object, D2.Digitization_Process, D3.Formal_Derivation, D8.Digital_Device, D9.Data_Object
- still in draft: many descriptions are missing...