posted by Pat on 5/12/2017

Hello Martin,

We have a first group of drafts for LRMoo for you comments. These are still very much drafts and we are aware that there is some lack of editorial consistency due to each person working separately on drafts without seeing the full picture. We are still missing a draft of the proposed merger of F3 Manifestation Product Type and F24 Publication Expression (and its related F19, F30, F32 and properties), but most of the classes we discussed in October are included.

​We have also made a first draft of the LRM(er) to LRMoo mapping. Since we did not discuss the attributes in LRM(er) in October, the mapping shows some that are not obvious and may raise issues.

One thing we will need to discuss in January is how the LRM representative expression attributes will fit with the existing properties for representative expression and representative manifestation.

Looking forward to hearing what you think.

posted by Martin on 16/12/2017

Dear Pat, all,

Just thinking about the F3 Manifestation Product Type and F24 Publication Expression merger.

A possible solution is a rethinking:

Publication Expression as the expression that includes determination of optical/material features of the Item,
and hence are F3.

If this includes the Manifestation Singleton as immediate manual work, and not a singular print,
this concept of expression extends to the hard-to-define borderlines between manually intended features and
not-intended features, such as slipping of a pen.

Then, we have to rethink Item. Is a painting an item, or a Manifestation Singleton? Is a booklet of paintings
an Item? I think we should somewhere restrict ourselves to some form of signs.

Is an inscription on a wall an Item? I'd say not.

(I would not like to include Patrick's remark that libraries continue to say they have an exemplar. I'd regard this as too
library specific. That's rights, as Patrick stated, but I do not see why we should change "Item" to this idea, because it
leaves the real Item undefined. Also, the purpose of FRBR was to serve the library user??)

The archival practice to bind things together as storage units must not be confused with the publisher intentions.

I'd tend to see an Item as a physical mobile object intended as a message to some public, i.e., not bound to a single receiver, as a
letter, but to be distributed (or go from hand to hand). That is an intention based definition.

Then, publication expression/ Manifestation would be the ultimate (relevant) form definition for the distribution.
Does it make sense to distinguish an "author expression" ?

Border cases are manuscripts with unique texts, but also desktop publishing. They include both aspects in one process and one product.
That is a strong argument to make F3 a case of expression (with optical/physical features).

The question is, if we would distinguish a non-optical Expression type. But I can imagine all transitions from an audio text to
a full pdf lay-out. So, may be more a question of a typology (than making a prototypical process the world and ignore the rest?)
that defines expression types that are "not yet publishable".

Then we are back at the question of the relevant signs, because any carrier has all optical and physical features.

So, rethinking, what does an author sending a text in Word or hand-written, but NOT MEANING the editor to use the layout?

posted by Pat on 18/12/2017Hi Martin,

Much food for thought here.

For F35 Nomen Use Statement: I am no longer convinced that it is a subclass of F2 Expression. Since we consider that an F2 Expression must express some F1 Work, and I cannot see what work is expressed by a nomen use statement. I think instead that F35 should be a subclass of E90 Symbolic Object.

For R4 carriers provided by, I agree that E90 Symbolic Object is better as the domain than F2. Any symbolic object can have carriers, not just an expression.

This fits well with your observation that F32 Carrier Production Event is more general than F3, as any E90 can have carriers produced for it.

For R5 has component, I agree with making it also a subproperty of P106

Declaring F3 Manifestation as a subclass of F2 Expression will be very unexpected to our readers and will have to be carefully explained in the scope note, as in the E-R formulation of LRM we have declared Expression and Manifestation to be disjoint. But in LRM we do not explicitly acknowledge that all manifestations are one-to-one with publication expressions, and thus have an essential nature as an aggregate (where the publisher's contribution is often minimized in cataloguing practice, but of course it must be there). Once we see it this way, then it does makes sense that the F3 Manifestation which is basically a specific kind of aggregating expression, is a subclass of F2.

For item, yes it is true that it must be something intended to be shared/multiply used, or else it would not be possible to have it in a library. And so I think I agree with this observation:

I'd tend to see an Item as a physical mobile object intended as a message to some public, i.e., not bound to a single receiver, as a
letter, but to be distributed (or go from hand to hand). That is an intention based definition.

I do hesitate to treat different content types separately, audio vs written or visual notation.

posted by Martin on 19/12/2017

Dear Maja,

On 12/19/2017 12:49 PM, Žumer, Maja wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 
>
> I agree with all except the Manifestation as subclass of Expression. I am not sure that Manifestation is an aggregating expression. Manifestation is the aggregate, the result, and it also embodies the aggregating expression. We also need the distinction between the expression ( in case of text an abstract sequence of words) and the way it is presented in a publication/Manifestation (with layout design, particular font, colour etc) in order to cluster all publications embodying the same expression (text in this example)…

I think there some fundamental methodological question to clarify:

A) If F2 and F3 do not have a common superclass, you need to define which substance and identity criteria are different for Manifestation and Expression in ALL cases. This must not be confused with "the distinction between the expression ( in case of text an abstract sequence of words) and the way it is presented in a publication/Manifestation". That would be a logical mistake.  If the Manifestation is basically a bit a wider concept than the Publication Expression, it is still distinct from all non-publication expressions, albeit a special case of Expression.

B) Do all non-publication expressions have common characteristics beyond being Expressions? If not, we only need a typology of expressions which are definitely NOT publication expressions, such as a text identified as a sequence of of words or characters.

C) Are there cases in which we cannot separate the Manifestation from any other Expression?  I argue that in desktop publishing, there are cases
of Expressions that cannot be distinguished from Manifestation, and primary manuscripts, if the intended message contains the physical appearance. If, on the other side, we argue that we can extract from any Manifestation a distinct Expression, albeit a secondary interpretation of an original work, we need to define which composition of levels of signs a manifestation must necessarily have. Can we do that?

D) Is the Manifestation result of a Work, an intellectual product with associated IPRs or not?  If yes, it must be a kind of Expression. The only solution to maintain
A disjointness of F2 and F3 would be, to require F2 to be of a special form of of signs not shared by publication expressions, e.g. at least a character level without typeface, and to define a "super expression" which is more than F2 and F3. This may imply however, that there are Manifestations without any other Expression, as above, or to restrict F2 as something which in any case can be "manifestated" with substantially added features.

If Manifestation is NOT an intellectual product, we are back at the discussion between incidental carrier forms and product types, i.e.mechanical questions.

If I can get a clear, consistent answer to these question, I can think about a solution 

posted by Pat on 8/1/2018

Yes, I think it will help people prepare to have this in advance.
I would propose to also distribute in advance the mapping from LRM(er) to LRMoo that Melanie prepared. I have attached it here.

In the reduction, there is one small point where I have a doubt. I am no longer convinced that F35 Nomen Use Statement is a subclass of F2 Expression, as it does not have a corresponding F1 Work. Rather, I think F35 is a subclass of E90 Symbolic Object.

The other draft rewritten scope notes do not have to be posted in advance. We can look at them when we are together, as we get to them.

posted by Pat on 10/1/2018

Hi Trond,

My first reaction is that your second drawing looks like the LRM general model of aggregates figure 5.7, with the publication work taking the role of the aggregating work, and the F3 is an aggregate manifestation.

posted by Trond on 10/1/2018

Yes, it will be the same.

The problem I see is that LRM defines the aggregating work as the selection and sequencing, but does not define what the substance of the aggregating expression is. The general expression definition does not really match this case, and I am not sure if I believe in the existence of this entity in between the Aggregating Work and the Manifestation  

In the 40th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 33nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig reviewed the proposed changes by Martin, Pat and Melanie for the harmonization  of LRM with FRBR. The outcome of the discussion and the resulted changes in text of LRM-FRBR is here.

HW have been assigned to Pat, MD an Maja

Cologne, January 2018

Posted by Pat on 15/5/2018

This is the homework relating to LRMoo. I think it reacts to and continues from the series of emails that Martin sent in March. I will look to see if the R30 HW assigned to me and Maja is in this file or if I should do something more. I will also check to make sure that one of us does an updated version of the LRM mapping so that we can review it one more time.

Posted by Patrick Le Boeuf  on 30/6/2018

During the FRBRoo/LRMoo meeting on May 24th, I was asked to add a paragraph to the scope note of F5 Item in order to introduce the notion of storage unit without declaring a formal class for it. I also used this opportunity to change the examples, as they were intended to highlight the distinction between Item and Manifestation Singleton, which is no longer relevant as we deprecated Manifestation Singleton. Here is my homework:

Posted by Martin on 21/11/2018

F3 / R4 modifications added...here

Posted by martin on 24/11/2018

Dear All,

Here my change of scope note:

Old:

P128 carries (is carried by)

Domain:              E18 Physical Thing

Range:                E90 Symbolic Object

Subproperty of:   E70 Thing.P130 shows features of (features are also found on):E70 Thing

Superproperty of: E24 Physical Man-Made Thing. P65 shows visual item (is shown by): E36 Visual Item

Quantification:    many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:         This property identifies an E90 Symbolic Object carried by an instance of E18 Physical Thing.

Examples:         

§  Matthew’s paperback copy of Reach for the Sky (E84) carries the text of Reach for the Sky (E73)

In First Order Logic:

                           P128(x,y) ⊃ E18(x)

                           P128(x,y) ⊃ E90(y)

                           P128(x,y) ⊃ P130(x,y)

New:

Scope note:   This property identifies an E90 Symbolic Object carried by an instance of E18 Physical Thing. Since an instance of   E90 Symbolic Object is defined as an immaterial idealization over potentially multiple carriers, an individual   realization on a physical carrier may be defective due to deterioration or shortcomings in the process of creating   the realization compared to the intended ideal. As long as these defects to not substantially affect the complete   recognition of the respective symbolic object, we still regard that it carries an instance of this Symbolic Object. If   these defects are of scholarly interest, the individual realization can be modeled as a Physical Feature. Note, that any   instance of E90 Symbolic Object   incorporated (P165)in the carried Symbolic Object is also carried by the same instance of E18 Physical Thing.

This needs to be formulated as deduction in FOL!

In the 42nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 35th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-frbr sig reviewed and revised the following:

• New scope note for F3 Manifestation
• New scope note for F5 Item
• Enhancing the scope note of P128 carries (is carried by)
• New scope note for the new property  Rxx ‘has part (forms part of’)
• Redraft the scope note of R4 embodies (is embodied in)
• LRMer to LRMoo mapping: LRM-E3-A3 :  In what concerns the Intended Audience attribute of LRM, it was proposed that instead of coming up with a new Rxx property such that would link an F2 Expression to an activity pattern, to be used by a specific group of people –which, in its turn would function as a constraint on the type of the activity –the alternative of extending E71 Man-made Thing : P103 was intended for (was intention of): E55 Type is best opted for. The reasoning is that the description “children’s book” does not evoke a particular use in the context of given group; what it does instead, is relate the designated object to the group of people it is suited for –in this case children.  Given the disagreement, it was decided that expanding the scope of P103 ‘was intended for (was intention of) be formed into a new issue.

Berlin, November 2018

posted by Martin on 12/5/2019

Dear All,

Here the scope note for the new class "Externalization Event" proposed in the last meeting. This unifies the expression creation with the performances on a higher level.

The idea being, that the "true" expression is always the activity, often being accidental what is recorded and in which way. The manuscript writing can be seen as a lone performance, with a patient paper under the hand holding the pen.

Fxx Externalization Event

Subclass of:        E7 Activity

Superclass of:     F28 Expression Creation (may be superclass of E65 Creation!)

                              F31 Performance

Scope note:         This class comprises activities of producing signs or sensory impressions as an organized, coherent and complete whole,intended for being received in this completeness by some audience, either directly via their senses or via persistent media at any later time. It comprises in particular novel expressions of thought, art in all forms, including rendering existing expressions, such as musical scores, theater plays or texts, in an individual way in performing arts or by graphic design.

Examples:          The creation of the original manuscript score of ‘Uwertura tragiczna’ by Andrzej Panufnik in 1942 in Warsaw (F28)

The reconstruction from memory of the manuscript score of ‘Uwertura tragiczna’ by Andrzej Panufnik in 1945 after the original score was destroyed during the war (F28)

Performing the ballet entitled ‘Rite of spring’, as choreographed by Pina Bausch, in Avignon, at the Popes’ Palace, on July 7, 1995 [individual performance] (F31)

Performing the operatic work entitled ‘Dido and Aeneas’, as directed by Edward Gordon Craig and conducted by Martin Shaw, in London, Hampstead Conservatoire, on May 17, 18, and 19, 1900 [run of performances] (F31)

Properties:          R19 created a realisation of (was realised through): F1 Work

The property R19 goes up from F28 to new class. We need a more general property from the Externalization Event to the persistent expressions it produced or contributed to, be it a manuscript, a recording, a painting of a theater scene. This property should generalize over R17 created (was created by): F2 Expression.

I could think of "Rxx has memorization in: F2 Expression".

The point is, that the persistent Expression could be a product directly of the "externalizers" or by the a member of the audience. If an author dictates a text to a scribe, or Platon reporting Sokrates, there is not much difference to someone taking video from a theater performance. This means, that the range of "Rxx has memorization in: F2 Expression" may or may not be product of another expression creation. It will however always require presence of the secondary creators in the primary externalization (or of a robot recording device).

Looking forward to your comments!

Posted by Martin on 20/5/2019

Dear Patrick,

Thank you very much for your elaborate thoughts!

On 5/13/2019 11:45 AM, patrick.le-boeuf@bnf.fr wrote:
> Dear Martin, and dear all,
> I'm sorry I couldn't attend the meeting, and I'm therefore not aware of the discussions that underlie this scope note. I think that the idea of declaring a specific class for the process of conveying information in a sensory form (for this is how I understand this new class) is extremely useful and interesting, so much so that I think it shouldn't be confined to LRMoo alone, but should be uplifted into CIDOC CRM, with additional examples taken from the universe of discourse of CIDOC CRM (such as a sculptor making a sculpture, an art student painting a copy of Mona Lisa, the Greek runner notifying Athenian citizens that their soldiers have won the Marathon battle, etc. -- perhaps even Martin or Steve giving a CIDOC CRM tutorial?).
 

That is indeed a justified thought, but all the context comes from LRM, and we have problems to keep CRMbase concise enough. So I'd rather tend to leave it in LRM.

> In the proposed scope note, which is overall fine with me, I simply have some doubts about the clause "intended for being received in this completeness by some audience"; while I agree that this is generally the case, there are also many counter-examples: rehearsals are instances of Externalization Event, although the intention is only indirect here (performers rehearse in order to improve what the audience will receive in a later event); a teenager writing a diary may not want any audience to read the externalized Expression, and it is unclear whether Franz Kafka or Emily Dickison were OK with the idea of having their externalized Expressions reach an audience, as they requested that all their manuscripts be destroyed after their death; and I'm also thinking of Mediaeval and Eastern performances which are only intended to be seen by God or the gods (unless we regard God or the gods as a valid instance of audience). However, it is possible to solve the issue by saying that the instances of E39 Actor who externalize such Expressions are themselves their own audience, possibly the only audience for which those complete Expressions are intended.

Well, difficult. In any case, the manuscripts were in a form potentially for an external audience. I wrote this phrase to make sure that not each utterance of a phoneme is regarded as externalization event. Since we model "bottom-up", I'd like to make sure we catch well the regular cases. The question, if private notes should be published, is quite interesting. Anybody has a right to hide and destroy his products, be it artists, researchers, technicians or amateurs in any capacity. The posthumous hunt for half-finished products of an artist is another social phenomenon.

For the time being, I'd rather concentrate on the intended externalizations, taking gods for a valid audience. But, we need a good way to describe the posthumous publication of fragmentary material. I'd rather tend to blame the editor for it?
> As for the label for the new property, rather than "has memorization", I would think of something like "Rxx is witnessed in / is a witness of" (in the sense of codicology and textual criticism: manuscripts are called "witnesses" of a text tradition). The resulting Expression is but a "witness" of what happened during the Externalization Event.

Sounds intellectually very clean, but I fear the narrower sense of "witness" will confuse people in case of recordings and simple writing??

Posted by Martin on 3/6/2019

Dear All,

Here my suggestion for a new scope note for "CPL2". 'CPL2' itself should be replaced by an adequate 'R' number:

CLP2 has physical form (is physical form of)

Domain:                F3 Manifestation Product Type

Range:                   E55 Type

Quantification:      (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:           This property associates an instance of F3 Manifestation with an instance of E55 Type describing the kind of physical form foreseen for the exemplars carrying this F3 Manifestation. In case the F3 Manifestation is intended to be used and distributed in digital form, the property should describe the form in which a physical copy can be obtained. In case the F3 Manifestation is an abstraction of a singleton item, the property describes the actual physical form the F3 Manifestation is abstracted from. This logical inference is an induction along the path that can be modelled as: F3 Manifestation R7i has example F5 Item P2 has type: E55 Type.

It can happen that a given exemplar, or subset of exemplars, originally produced, or intended to be produced, with that characteristic, accidentally lacks it. This fact should be recorded as a property of F5 Item, and not of F3 Manifestation.

Examples:             The sound recording entitled ‘The Glory (????) of the human voice’, identified by label and label number ‘RCA Victor Gold Seal GD61175’, containing recordings of musical works performed by Florence Foster Jenkins (F3) CLP2 has physical form  Compact Disc (E55)
 

Posted by Trond on 10/6/2019

I have also assembled a diagram. Posted it on the arm-list but maybe did not get through yet.

The LRMoo.svg file should display in most browsers. 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2anv0lpvknj1dd7/AABK_u_RQN-qCi6s1Kcxhq5Ea?dl=0

Also you may find the svg file downloaded here

In the 44th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 37th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig continued the discussion about the harmonization of LRM and FRBRoo. The decisions and the assigned HWs are here. The new draft version of LRMoo- FRBRoo v5, is here.

Paris, June 2019

In the 45th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 38th FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed the HWs about the following properties and examples

• R68 is inspiration for (was inspired by) – HW: GB is to ponder on possible ramifications for the model if this proposal is accepted.
• Examples for R10 vs. R67 
• R10 has member (is member of)
• R67 has part (forms part of) -HW: PLB should go over the examples for symphonies that have been revised.
• CLPs
• R69 specifies physical for (is specified physical form of)  
• R70 specifies dimension (is specified dimension of) 
• R71 specifies material part (is specified material part for) - to add an example of a digital object distributed on many physical copies
• R72 specifies number of parts (is the specified number of parts for)New proposal for Rn to map LRM attribute LRM-E2-A2 Rn takes representative attribute form (bears representative attribute for)

the discussion and the decisions taken can be found here

Heraklion, October 2019

In the 46th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 39th FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed the broad topics that PR had organized the LRMoo issues in. A summary of the decisions reached per topic can be found below. For more details, see linked file.

Topic 1: Aggregation/containers. 

• F16 Container Work deprecated, meronymic relations to be expressed through properties
• a specific reference to aggregations/containers to appear in the Model Overview section of the LRMoo definition
• Rxx uses expression [D: F1, R: F2] to be relabelled: Rxx uses expression from (has expression used in) [D: F1, R: F2] 
  HW: PR to provide a scope note for the new property
• Rxx incorporates external expression (is external expression incorporated in) [D: F2, F2]: discussion re. what its domain should be was inconclusive
• Rxx has elaboration: new scope note
• R67 has part: new scope note 

Topic 2:Externalization

• Rnn was remembered in (contains memory of) [D: F28, R: F2] (originally Pxx has memorization in): new label and scope note, isA P67i is referred to by 
  HW: MR to come up with new examples, 
• R20 recorded: underwent editing 

Topic 3: F25 Performance Plan (deprecated)

• R25 deprecated: migration path P33 used specific technique [D: E7, R: E29]
• alternative to E29: socE2 Activity Plan 

Topic 4: properties onnected to F26 and F21 (both deprecated)

• R21 created: deprecated (examples moved to R17)
• R22 created a realization: deprecated (examples moved to R19)
• R19 created a realization: Domain set to F28

Topic 5: reproduction properties

• F33 Reproduction Event isA F30 Manifestation Creation
• F33 new example
• reinstate and edit R30 (domain & range the same as Rnn reproduced publication, which will be discarded)
  HW: AF and FM to find examples regarding externalizations of instances of F2 Expression from Antiquity, in order to illustrate how authorship is established in Antiquity.

Topic 6: F54 Utilized Informaton Carrier

• F54: deprecated, its scope note moved to F5 Item
• classes and properties linked to F54 need to be reexamined (linked to F5 instead)
• not to be introduced to CRMdig.

Topic 7: new examples for R10 and R17 -HW by PLB. Edited and accepted.

Topic 8: R36 superproperty?

• it is a shortcut. Instead of declaring it a superproperty, it should be declared a shortcut. 

Athens, February 2020

In the 49th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 42nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, PR informed the SIG that an IFLA namespace is available for FRBRoo (v2.2) and LRMer (https://www.iflastandards.info/). It was decided that an rdf for LRMoo should be produced by incormporating a core set of elements that are decided upon(given that the IFLA namespace can be used). 
HW: TA

Furthermore, the sig went through HW presented by PR. 

• Properties modified: 
  1. R3 realized, (HW: PR to fic the property labels and referred classes in the examples)
  2. R18 created
  3. R26 produced things of type
  4. R27 materialized
• Classes modified: F32

The details of the decisions can be found here.  

March 2021

Post by Pat Riva (16 June 2021)

Hello all,

Just a heads up that homework for LRMoo is posted in the Google drive in a directory for Issue 360, and can be seen here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1emibzWZuCto2glPpSPEBrgOnbwJCAwji 

There are a number of sub-parts to be discussed. The hope is that everything that is structural can be addressed.

A quick summary of the most significant points:

• F5 Item: propose to change the superclass
• F34 Controlled Vocabulary, F35 Nomen Use Statement, propose depreciation, and thus review of related properties (some propose depreciation, others moved)
• Approve scope notes for new properties R74 uses expression of and R75 incorporates
• Determine correct superproperties for the remaining ones that don't have them
• F30 Manifestation Creation: this is just improving the wording of the scope note for clarification

The most important files are present, but a couple more are on their way and will be added to the directory.

Thanks, Pat

In the 51st CIDOC CRM & 44th FRBRoo SIG meeting, PR walked SIG members through HW prepared for LRMoo. 
The classes and properties discussed were: 

R56 is related to
R36 uses script conversion 
R35 is specified by 
R74 uses expression of
R75 incorporates
R8 combines
R69 specifies physical form 
R70 specifies dimension 
R72 specifies number of parts
R71 specifies material part 
Rnn has elaboration/specialization

F2 Expression
F28 Expression Creation 

For a summary of the decisions and the list of HW see the attached document 

Post by Pat Riva (8 Mar 2022) [E-VOTE] 

Hello all,

Following the discussion of F27 during SIG 52 in February, further work on revised scope notes for F27 and R16 was completed. It is presented here for an e-vote.

This vote is in 2 parts: a-F27; b-R16

Please vote Yes to accept the revised scope notes, or No to not accept them. If voting no, please explain. I will summarize the results to the list on March 20.

a) Revised scope note for class F27, renamed as Work Creation

This class comprises activities by which instances of F1 Work come into existence. An instance of F27 Work Creation can serve to document the period a work was coming into existence and the circumstances of it, when these are known.

An instance of F27 Work Creation marks the initial creation of an instance of F1 Work through expressions or other externalizations that are sufficiently elaborated so that the characteristic conceptual identity of the work could be recognised as existing.

In many cases this will coincide with the first known complete externalisation of an expression of the work. In other cases, the initial creation of an instance of F1 Work may be inferred from multiple, or later, expressions or other forms of evidence. For instance, commissioning of a work may explicitly be agreed on after the presentation of an already complete and detailed elaboration of the work that was not made public. Performances may be prior to written expressions, as in the case of Shakespeare’s works.

The work, as an intellectual construction, may evolve from its initial creation onwards, until the last known expression of it.

An instance of E39 Actor with which a work is associated through the chain of properties F1 Work. R16i was created by: F27 Work Creation. P14 carried out by: E39 Actor corresponds to the notion of the “creator” of the work.

-For comparison, the current scope note of F27

This class comprises beginnings of evolutions of works.

An instance of F27 Work Conception marks the initiation of the creation of an instance of F1 Work. The work, as an intellectual construction, evolves from this point on, until the last known expression of it. An instance of E39 Actor with which a work is associated through the chain of properties F1 Work. R16i was initiated by: F27 Work Conception. P14 carried out by: E39 Actor corresponds to the notion of the “creator” of the work. In the case of commissioned works, it is not the commissioning that is regarded as the work conception, but the acceptance of the commission.

This event does not always correlate with the date assigned in common library practice to the work, which is usually a later event (such as the date of completion of the first clean draft).

In addition, F27 Work Conception can serve to document the circumstances that surrounded the appearance of the original idea for a work, when these are known.

b) Revised scope note for property R16, renamed "created (was created by)"

-Revised scope note:

This property associates the initial creation of a work and the instance of F1 Work that was created.

- Current scope note of R16

This property associates the first conception of a work and the instance of F1 Work itself that ensued from a given initial idea.

It marks the origin of the causality chain that results in a work’s coming into existence.

Thanks, Pat

Post by Martin Doerr (9 Mar 2022) [E-VOTE F27; R16]

YES to all.

Martin

Post by Pat Riva (20 Mar 2022) -result of the evote for F27; R16: 

As of today I have received 6 Yes votes (both on the list and sent directly to me) and no negative votes. I take this as sufficient for the e-vote and will integrate the changes into the LRMoo working document.

Thanks to all.
Pat

Post by Maja Zumer (23 March 2022) [E-VOTE: LRMooR26]

Yes, 

Maja

Post by Daria Hookk (23 March 2022) [E-VOTE: LRMooR26]

Yes.

According to the output of the evote (Issue 591), F29 Recording Event and its associated properties R20 recorded (was recorded by), and R65 recorded aspects of (has aspects recorded through) will be deprecated in LRMoo

According to the outcome of the evote for issue 589, the scope notes of 

• F28
• R2 
• F27 

were updated in the document. 

In the 54th CIDOC CRM & 47th FRBR/LRMoo SIG meeting, Pat Riva gave an outline of the state of the issue. 

Topics discussed pertain to: 

1. the superclass of F3 Manifestation (request to keep it disjoint from F2 Expression) and implications
2. new properties mapping to LRM-R20 & LRM-R29
3. new property to map LRM-E2-A2 Representative Expression Attitude
4. Relabelling class/properties to match IFLA LRM labels

F3 Manifestation superclass

The proposal was to keep F3 Manifestation disjoint from F2 Expression (as in the IFLA LRM). 

Decision: 

• Keep F2 Expression and F3 Manifestation disjoint, like in LRM-ER (make them both direct subclasses of E73 Information Object) –F2 standing for content and F3 for container of the content.
• In a similar vein, modify the superclass relation of F30 Manifestation Creation (declare it a subclass of E65 Creation and E12 Production, instead of F28 Expression Creation)

Details here.

New properties mapping to LRM-R20 and LRM-R29

The proposal was to introduce semantically equivalent properties to LRM-R20 accompanies or complements, LRM-R29 has alternate, rather than associating them with very high-level, underspecific properties. 

Discussion points: 

• These properties cannot be exactly mapped to anything existing in the CRM universe. In that sense, new properties have to be introduced to LRMoo. 
• There is no requirement for CMR-family models’ properties to be declared subproperties of CRMbase (either directly or through inheritance). In that sense, it suffices that R77 and R88 are listed under their direct superproperties in LRMoo (insofar as they do have superproperties in LRMoo). The long paths given are commonsensical enough, but the proposed properties are much more specific. 
• Using a long path from the IFLA LRM to LRMoo mapping as a superproperty, is it considered good practice? To be considered again. 
• The concept of shortcut also falls short of this description (R78), because in the CRM universe, the long path -shortcut relation implicates that the shortcut is a consequence of the long path. Here it is not the case, the shortcuts are much more specific than the long paths –should be dubbed an “Inverse shortcut” instead. Ignore this for the time being, but it needs to be checked in LRMoo and other extensions.

Decisions: 

1. Introduce two properties (R77 accompanies or complements, and R78 has alternate) in LRMoo that exactly map to LRM-R20 accompanies or complements and LRM-R29 has alternate, respectively. Definitions here.
2. Start a new issue to check inverse shortcuts in the CRM (base and family models). Insofar as we mention inverse shortcuts in the properties’ declarations, we need to define the concept -and check if it applies elsewhere too. 

New property to map LRM-E2-A2 Representative Expression Attribute

Given that the mapping for LRM-E2-A2 Representative Expression Attributes to LRMoo R73 takes representative attribute from does not provide with equivalent semantics, the proposal was to introduce a property that points directly from F1 Work to E55 Type: R79 has representative expression attribute (is representative expression attribute of), [D: F1, R:E55]. 

Discussion points: 

• This construct relates to issue 556 (Content of minimal vocabularies restricting the CRM types) and the type hierarchies that we need to develop. 
• There are some kinds of expression closely related to any given work (they are dependent on its type). Their presence in the documentation of the work is not necessary however. In the absence of value for such an attribute, we do not fail to characterize the respective work as being of a certain type. 
• Reconsider the relation btw R79 and the path F1.R73:F2.P2:E55 (etc.). If it is a long path -shortcut relation.
• Reconsider if it needs a .1 property as well. 

Decision: Admit property in LRMoo.  Property definition here.

Relabelling class/properties to match IFLA LRM labels: 

Affects:

• F32 Carrier Production Event: change to F32 Item Production Event
• R5 has component (is component of): change to R5 has part (forms part of)
• R7 is materialization of (is materialized in): change to R7 exemplifies (is exemplified by)
• R33 has content: change to R33 has string

Discussion: R5 should evoke the semantics of its superproperty (P148 has component). Also, two ways of splitting any information object: randomly selected fragments (rendered by a has part-like property) vs. meaningful, structural parts (rendered by a has component-like property). R5 explicitly refers to the latter case, and its label should evoke its semantics. 

Decision: 

Proceed with the relabeling as proposed, except for R5 has component (is component of), whose label will be retained
 

Rome, September 2022

In the 57th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 &50th FRBR/LRMoo SIG, Pat Riva gave an update on the process of getting an IFLA approval for LRMoo. The slide deck of her presentation can be found here. 

The SIG was made aware that decisions for issues 594 and 649 have been already incorporated in LRMoo V0.9.5. 

Nb. With the release of LRMoo V1.0 the issue will close.

Marseille, October 2023