I think Richard Light's conlusion is to the point.
The intention of making CIDOC CRM into an ISO standard is to make it more
stable and useful as a tool for modeling cultural heritage databases. Of
course ISO will have the copyright of the standard, but that should not
cause problems more than for SGML. Cost may be a problem. I have asked the
members of CIDOC CRM sig in charge of the ISO contact to clearify the
intention of making CRM into a ISO standard to the TEI list.
There seems to be not too much communication between the TEI and the museum
communities. But I cannot see any scholarly/scientific reason for this
other than tradition. TEI is good on encoding texts (form, structure and
bibliographical information), but with all respect I find it a little bit
incomplete and not as systematic as it could be system with respect to the
encoding and the extraction of hte semantic content of a text. However,
Franco Niccolucci, Nick Ryan, Jon Holmen and I have worked on how to extend
TEI with the CRM-ontology to mark up older archaeological texts. The result
was presented on CAA2004 (Computer Applications in Archaeology). I will
suggest that a TEI-sig should be established with the objective make a
"CIDOC CRM-module" in TEI.
Unit for Digital Documentation,
Univeristy of Oslo
At 18:31 18.05.2004 +0100, Richard Light wrote:
>In message <[log in to unmask]>, Dieter
>Köhler <[log in to unmask]> writes
>>According to the "Introduction" on the CIDOC web-site, it is planed to turn
>>the Conceptual Reference Model into an ISO standard. Recalling the recent
>>thread about ISO's policy regarding language identifiers, I wonder what
>>legal and practical implications this has for adopting and using (parts of)
>>their ontology for TEI. I have the impression that such issues are getting
>>more and more important, as creating ontologies and markup schemes becomes
>>a business that makes money.
>>Personally I would prefer that best practice for academic text encoding
>>discourages the use of such proprietary standards wherever possible, even
>>if it is then necessary to develop alternatives for already existing
>>standards. The cumulated costs of proprietary standards and their negative
>>effect on free information exchange are, in my opinion, too high.
>I would strongly support this sentiment myself, and I am somewhat
>dismayed to see the CIDOC CRM branded as a "proprietary standard",
>simply because it is being put forward as an International Standard.
>It is certainly, in practice, being developed by dedicated members of
>the museums community for the common good. Whatever policies ISO might
>be pursuing, I am sure that CIDOC itself has no intention to license or
>otherwise restrict the use of the CRM. (I will certainly be raising
>this issue with CIDOC.)
>Come to that, where does this line of argument leave the TEI's use of
>SGML (ISO 8879-1986) ??
>SGML/XML and Museum Information Consultancy
>[log in to unmask]