W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-dspace@w3.org > June 2003

RE: CIDOC, alternative to Harmony

From: Butler, Mark <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:22:00 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F066A1DAB@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'www-rdf-dspace@w3.org'" <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>

Hi MacKenzie

I think it is quite hard to say whether CIDOC or Harmony is a preferred

- CIDOC is richer than Harmony; but this also means it is more complicated
e.g. CIDOC has approximately 75 classes and 105 properties, Harmony has
approximately 13 classes and 20 properties

- CIDOC was originally developed using TELOS, a different way of encoding
semantic networks predating RDF, but both Harmony and CIDOC are expressable

- There is an interesting discussion of the approach adopted when creating
CIDOC here

- There seems to be a standards activity around CIDOC, whereas there is no
formal standards activity around Harmony. This means it may be easier to
introduce changes into Harmony, or conversly CIDOC is potentially more

- CIDOC is on track to be an ISO standard, although I note that this tends
to hold little sway with the web community

Do you have any other observations?

Dr Mark H. Butler
Research Scientist                HP Labs Bristol
Internet: http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/marbut/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MacKenzie Smith [mailto:kenzie@MIT.EDU]
> Sent: 20 June 2003 18:30
> To: Butler, Mark
> Subject: RE: CIDOC, alternative to Harmony
> Hi Mark,
> Do you guys ever resolve this question? I was interested in
> knowing, since the CIDOC standard is far better known in the
> digital library/cultural heritage institution world than Harmony,
> and might be easier to explain to people. Did you figure out
> that Harmony really was the preferred solution?
> MacKenzie/
> At 11:25 AM 6/4/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> >This paper
> >
> >http://metadata.net/harmony/JODI_Oct2002.pdf
> >
> >Provides a comparison of CIDOC and Harmony.
> >
> >M
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 06:22:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:13:06 UTC