[Crm-sig] Preferred Identifier vs Appellation vs Image (Vladimir Alexiev)

Michael Hopwood michael at editeur.org
Wed Nov 21 12:47:04 EET 2012


Hello Vladimir,

I noted your interesting points on identifiers, appellations and thumbnail images on crm-sig.

These are all points that overlap strongly with data modelling use cases in the commercial sector:

Identifiers - product IDs like ISBN but also abstract "work" IDs need to be unambiguously assigned; "titles" are technically no different from "identifiers" but obviously less unique and persistent so need to be managed; they also need granular description (another issue but maybe one that CIDOC/FRBRoo could look at?)

Images / preflabels - 

Final note about IDs and users - actually, many people do order books retail via the ISBN as they like the security of knowing they will get *this book*. Maybe something similar is true of museum patrons "above" a certain level of commitment (e.g. if you are an art fan aware that there is not just one "Sunflowers by van Gogh"... etc...)...?

Users of digital cultural objects / products *do* care a lot about one class of identifiers - the actionable kind; e.g. ISBN-A for books; maybe it would be useful to consider the idea of actionable "MOIs" for heritage objects and related content items in relation to CRM?

I know that www.LIDO-schemaorg was developed with this rationale in mind, so that it assigns preflabels and display versions of various types of label (though internally not yet as granular as I would hope) and has a "resource" area for description of surrogates to search and display systems. 

Could we talk a bit about these use cases on or off list? I'm looking right now (in www.linkedheritage.eu) at commercial reuse of cultural heritage data (and potentially "content") so it's extremely encouraging to note you interest in very similar issues.

If you wanted to phone/skype I'm available most of next week too.

Best wishes,

Michael

-----Original Message-----

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 12:57:45 +0200
From: "Vladimir Alexiev" <vladimir.alexiev at ontotext.com>
Subject: [Crm-sig] Preferred Identifier vs Appellation vs Image
To: "'crm-sig'" <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Cc: Dominic Oldman <doldman at britishmuseum.org>,	Joshan Mahmud
	<JMahmud at britishmuseum.org>
Message-ID: <016d01cdc70d$df81a410$9e84ec30$@alexiev at ontotext.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

CRM has one notion of preferredness:
0. crm:P48_has_preferred_identifier.

However, in any system that displays search results, it's important to know two other preferred attributes of an object:
1. Preferred image: to be shown as thumbnail in a result list or lightbox 2. Preferred label (name/title/appellation): to be shown as short textual representation of the object

In ResearchSpace we've tackled this in some way, even though imperfect:
1. For BM data: subproperty bmo:PX_has_main_represesentation of crm:P138i_ has_representation
   For RKD data: subclass rso:E38_Main_Image of crm:E38_Image 2. Following LOD best practice, we try to make rdfs:label for every object.
   This is rife with its own problems, e.g. because thesaurus terms have a different one (skos:prefLabel).

I wonder why CRM standardizes 0 but not 1 & 2. It seems to me the notion of preferred identifier is least useful of the three because:
- when you integrate data from various systems (CRM's forte), each will come with it's own notion of primary key, so there won't be agreement on "preferred identifier".
  In contrast, there may well be agreement on preferred image (e.g. full frontal) and appellation (e.g. official title)
- users do not (or should not) care about identifiers

---
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 11:48:50 +0200
From: "Vladimir Alexiev" <vladimir.alexiev at ontotext.com>
Subject: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: P37, P38, P48 should be moved up to
	Appellation
To: <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Message-ID: <01f501cdc7cd$68e9d370$3abd7a50$@alexiev at ontotext.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

P37, P38, P48 apply to Identifier but I think they should be moved upwards to apply to Appellation.
Consequently, two renamings will be needed: E15_Appellation_Assignment, P48_has_preferred_appellation

Reasons:

- P48: see email "Preferred Identifier vs Appellation vs Image"

- P37, P38: 
people, groups, places, works of art and conceptual objects are known by different names in different times.
Tracking the temporal validity of identifiers may be important, but it seems to me doing it for these other entities may be more important yet.
The BM at least is tracking the temporal validity of person names.

I'll describe a complementary or alternative solution re P37, P38 in further email "ADDITION: property "active in period"




More information about the Crm-sig mailing list