[Crm-sig] [Fwd: CIDOC CRM in OWL 2]

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Sep 8 00:22:08 EEST 2009

Simon Reinhardt wrote:
> Yes, the primitive values are only listed as classes in there for 
> completeness (since they appear as classes in the documentation). The 
> properties using them are declared as datatype properties with a range 
> of rdfs:Literal so usage of RDF literals is actually encouraged. I 
> didn't want to define more exact ranges because for example xsd:dateTime 
> is not an exact match for the time primitive because it can only hold 
> one date, not describe a range of time.
> If you think they are too confusing I can remove those classes.

Yes, better remove. The intention of "Primitive Value" was to describe that
here in an implementation a "primitive value" representing number/string/time
should appear. Since there is no common abstraction for these in our databases,
we could not describe them differently in the CRM.

E.g., "Number" could be integer, double, float, complex, intervals, or any array or matrix of

I think we should add in the CRM text a warning not to model these as classes.


> Regards,
>  Simon
> martin wrote:
>> Dear Simon,
>> Thank you verry much for your contribution!
>> I'd however prefer not to model the Primitive Values as classes,
>> because this causes another indirection that
>> hits heavily on query performance. Direct use of RDF literal
>> for any primitive value is one choice.
>> Best,
>> Martin
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: CIDOC CRM in OWL 2
>> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:35:17 +0200
>> From: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt at koeln.de>
>> To: martin at ics.forth.gr
>> Hello,
>> I created a new representation of the CIDOC CRM in OWL. The details 
>> about this can be found on 
>> <http://bloody-byte.net/rdf/cidoc-crm/index.html>.
>> However just quickly summarising it:
>> The existing OWL implementation did not meet my satsifaction. The OWL 
>> file is being served with the wrong content type (can be fixed easily 
>> though). The URIs used for the terms are relative to the document and 
>> therefore depend on the hosting server and change with every version 
>> which makes them rather unsuitable for a Linked Data context. Also the 
>> way the URIs are constructed (with dots) is problematic in various RDF 
>> syntaxes. Apart from that new OWL 2 constructs like property chains 
>> lent themselves rather nicely for implementing the model so I felt I 
>> might as well create my own ontology. The result of this is available 
>> in the Turtle and RDF/XML formats and valid within OWL 2 DL.
>> I think I cannot post to your mailing list since it's members only but 
>> if you want to forward my email there for discussion I'm fine with that!
>> Looking forward to your feedback,
>>  Simon


  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
  Principle Researcher          |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
                Center for Cultural Informatics               |
                Information Systems Laboratory                |
                 Institute of Computer Science                |
    Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
  Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
          Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl               |

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list