Re: [Records in Contexts users] Digest for records_in_contexts_users@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

[Ann Attwood]

Hi Richard

Thank you very much for your very kind assessment of my model and your super helpful comments.  I will tweak accordingly and set about trying it out for real.

And yes please let me know about your RiC and conservation interaction explorations, sounds really interesting.  It is something I had at the back of my mind to look at once I had got my head round the collection description side as an add on off the Instantiation entity.

Many thanks once again

Best wishes

Ann

On Tue, 5 May 2026 at 16:17, <records_in_c...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

records_in_c...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• Digest for records_in_c...@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 1 topic - 1 Update

Digest for records_in_c...@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 1 topic

Richard Williamson <richard.william...@gmail.com>: May 05 12:19AM +0200 Hi Ann,   Thank you very much for writing and sharing this, I love it! A beautiful example of defining a 'meta-model' for a RiC description of a collection; not too many examples of this kind of thing have been shared on the list before I think, it's great that you did so!   I am impressed with the modelling, which is both accurate (at least according to my own interpretations!) and detailed: a large proportion of RiC is involved, including almost all entities. I will make a few minor comments below, but these are of no great significance, what you have is already really good.   I too love Matthew's tool! I have written to Matthew privately that I and others in EGAD had something like this in mind for some time, indeed I was intending one day to try to make something like it; but it would not have been as good as what Matthew' has created, it is fantastic and better that it has emerged out of the RiC community instead!   My not very important comments on the modelling:   1. Where you have written 'Or Activity? That Record Set records' (n37, towards the right), I would suggest indeed to use Activity here, and to use 'documents' instead of 'results or resulted from' in the arrow from n27 to n36. There are a few words about Event vs Activity in RiC-AG at the following link (§6a.3.3; the previous section §6a.3.2 may also be useful)...   https://ica-egad.github.io/RiC-AG/faq--general_questions_and_smaller_modelling_questions.html#can-you-elaborate-upon-the-difference-between-activity-and-event   ...I'm not sure if that helps much, but a reasonable rule of thumb would be that Activity (and 'documents'/'documented by') is almost always correct when it comes to the raison d'être of a record resource, i.e. what it is about/documenting. What you have is not wrong, since Activity is a sub-entity of Event and 'documents' is a sub-relation of 'results or resulted from', but expressing it more precisely where one can is always good!   2. On the other hand, in n29 'Or Activity? How we come to have it', here I think I'd be inclined to keep n28 as Event in a meta-model of the kind you are describing, just mentioning that Activity can be used where appropriate. I'd imagine that there could be a fair bit of serendipity sometimes in 'How we come to have it', i.e. the 'agent-designed and performed' aspect of Activity that RiC-AG refers to would be unlikely to be regarded as present (or at least rather a stretch!).   3. Whereas for 'n5', I'd definitely view accumulation of the collection as a whole as an Activity: there is definitely some agent-performed/designed-ness there :-). For the same reason, Activity and Activity Type seem good to me in n13 and n14.   4. I very much enjoyed the use of 'results or resulted from' between Family and Event (n50 and n52)!! I had never thought of that before!! To be a killjoy, some might think that this might be stretching 'results or resulted from' a bit far, perhaps the weaker 'is associated with event' could be used instead if so :-).   5. In relating Record Parts to Records, and Records to Record Sets, I'd suggest to use the more specific 'has or had constituent' and 'includes or included' respectively; again, not wrong how you have it, but more specific is good :-).   6. I think 'has or had part' is not really intended to be used with Person as domain, at least an example would have to be quite out-of-the-way I think, as it is supposed to refer specifically to parts-of-a-whole. I think Position is not really intended for roles in the sense you have in mind either; I think probably it can be used with Family in some circumstances, e.g. 'Father-figure', but then it is something 'fixed', whereas if I understand correctly you mean rather the role a family member might have played in a given Event/Activity. I think what I would suggest here is to add a second path between Person and Activity which is interpolated by another Activity of type 'Role that a person played in the Event/Activity', using the relations 'performs or performed' followed by 'is or was subevent of'. I.e. one ends up with a triangle in which the short way round is the arrow 'is or was participant in' that you already have, and the long way round consists of 'performs or performed' (with range Activity) followed by 'is or was subevent of'.   That's all I think!   As an aside, I am quite interested in exploring interactions between RiC and conservation; I have a friend who works in conservation at the London Archives, and there are a few themes we're interested in exploring. In case you would be interested in that, do let me know :-).   Thank you very much again for sharing this very nice modelling!   Best wishes, Richard       On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 12:36 PM Ann Attwood <ann.attw...@gmail.com> wrote:

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to records_in_context...@googlegroups.com.