I would like to thank all for very informative feedback. Apologies for the term
"CIDAR" in my original email as I meant "CIDOC," which has been
suggested by Dov Winer (and also by a CIDOC contact - see email below). Let's say
CIDOC were used, what would be required to harmonize the CIDOC structure and nomenclature
with WikiData conventions? Thanks also to Daniel Mietchen and his feedback and interest
in learning more about what may be required to make this happen. I am including email
below that provides information on CIDOC from Martin Doerr. Jeff Thompson raised the
issue of CIDOC (an ISO standard) is behind a paywall, and I do not know what issues this
raises. However, it touches on something the WD4R project will need to address - how to
incorporate reference to, use of, and possible access to, valuable research information
that is subscription-based (eg. Nature, Science). Has there been any consideration for
two-tiered access to WD4R - a free basic access and a subscription access that may include
access to Science, Nature and other valuable resources? Best regards - Sam
--- The following note from Martin Doerr at ICS.forth.gr <CIDOC support> ---
From: martin [mailto:martin@ics.forth.gr]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 5:46 AM
To: Sam Smith
Subject: Re: CIDOC or PAPYRUS as an Ontology for Historical Information
Dear Mr. Smith,
There are dozens or may be hundreds of CIDOC CRM extensions. Most do not come to our
attention <This is in regard to the PAPYRUS history ontology project, that appears to
be unused>. Many are created because people do not take their time to understand the
concepts in depth. If they come in contact with us, we do everything to provide good
consulting.
Here, the creators extended the ontology with what we call "terminology", i.e.,
classes which do not introduce new relevant relationships in order to connect things to
facts. They are just for classification, such as "forest".
That does not make a "history ontology" in the proper sense. In confuses
geographic classification and others with the core notion of history.
We recommend to keep a system of concepts for classification, albeit a "formal
ontology", separate from the ontology that provides relationship semantics. To our
understanding, the CIDOC CRM has a fairly complete coverage of history in the mechanical
sense. By coverage we mean to provide generalizations that cover the phenomena in the
domain of interest. Specializations may elaborate general relationships into more specific
patterns of behavior. For instance, Steffen Hennicke from the Humboldt University in
Berlin is working on an extension of CRM to detail into things like political activities
and archival recording, which introduces two or three new classes such as "expression
of will".
So, I'd recommend you just use CIDOC CRM as is, and combine via "P2 has
type" with adequate vocabularies. If you like, I can subscribe you to crm-sig
mailing list, then you can discuss directly with all experts. You are also kindly invited
to join our next meeting in Oxford, Feb 9-12, and shortly present your project. Please do
not hesitate to ask me any questions. As first reading, look at:
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc_tutorial/index.html (better take the three hours time to
see this!)
and then recommendations on:
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/comprehensive_intro.html
Best season greetings,
Martin