[Crm-sig] URI to refer to CIDOC-CRM and FRBRoo namespace(s) and concepts?

Vladimir Alexiev vladimir.alexiev at ontotext.com
Mon Mar 26 19:18:17 EEST 2012

Hi Michael!

> The LIDO spec says: "CIDOC-CRM concept definitions are given at
> http://www.cidoccrm.org/crm-concepts/ Data values in the sub-element term
may often
> be: Man-Made Object (with conceptID
> Man-Made Feature (http://www.cidoc-rm.org/crmconcepts/E25), Collection
> (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmconcepts/E78)."

I think this is bad advice on several fronts:
- I see 4 URLs above, and all 4 are different ;-)
- It doesn't refer to the official release URI (see below)
- I think that using numbers only, without the English labels, is calling
for trouble and errors

The page http://www.cidoc-crm.org/official_release_cidoc.html lists some
oficial URIs.
I would use this one: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm-english-label
This URL resolves (following linked data principles) and redirects to the
current version:

Martin, I'd suggest several fixes:
1. Please make the official URIs into links:
 http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm-english-label and
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm .
2. Please fix this link later in the page to use the same URI for the
current version:
3. Fix the MIME type returned by the server
-- currently it is:
curl --head http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/5.0.4/cidoc-crm-english-label
Content-Type: text/xml
-- should be:
Content-Type: application/rdf+xml

> Can I just add on the relevant FRBRoo term ID (e.g. F26 for movies) to the
URI prefix
> for CRM? E.g. yielding "http://www.cidoccrm.org/crm-concepts/F26"?

You shouldn't, as these are separate ontologies

> 2. Is there a URI to denote CIDOC-CRM or FRBRoo itself as the "source" of
> concept? I.e. the URI for the concept scheme?

Do you mean SKOS "concept scheme"?

Cheers! Vladimir

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list