[Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

Dominic Oldman DOLDMAN at britishmuseum.org
Mon Jul 28 12:47:08 EEST 2014


Hi Richard , All,

I am slightly confused about this discussion.

The purpose of the scope notes is to clarify the meaning of the entities and relationships that make up the CRM. The CRM models real world things both material and non-material.

Inclusion of a named graph example in the scope notes does not affect the technical independence of the standard. It simple says that this is an example (in this case) of a propositional object. We need to have examples that are practically useful and mean something to people.

In that context it personally bothers me not whether we have an example of a named graph or indeed other examples from other schema formats -  as long as it helps people to understand what a propositional object is (and its scope). We could equally use examples from other data schema worlds and again it would say nothing about the technical implementation of the CRM. None of these examples would affect the standard in terms of its neutrality. It's an illustrative scope note, but is not part of the standard in the context you describe.

Examples need to be wide and varied and cater for all the different types of people that use the CRM and want to understand how it works.

Cheers,

Dominic



From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Richard Light
Sent: 28 July 2014 09:41
To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] *** ISSUE *** Revision of scope note for E73 Information Object to specifically include named graphs

Martin,

I thought that a major merit of the CRM was that it was an abstract model, which could be instantiated using whatever technology was felt to be appropriate.  That being the case, I would be concerned if RDF-specific techniques were presented to the world as the only way in which a particular challenge ("implementing argumentation systems ...") could be tackled using the CRM.  Or are you talking specifically about RDF implementations of the CRM?

Why can't "premises and conclusions" be modelled using reification, so they can then be given a unique URI? This is the sort of approach which the BM has successfully deployed, as I understand it.  I would be grateful if someone could provide a really simple concrete example which shows the need for the named graph approach.

To pick up on the suggestion of using the AAT as an example: in what way is the AAT a named graph?  Surely it's a SKOS Concept Scheme (plus)?  I think it would be impossible to give an example of a "well-known" named graph, for the reasons Simon has been explaining.

Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20140728/2fa3f0b5/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list