[Crm-sig] FRBRoo published in IFLA namespace
richard at light.demon.co.uk
Fri Feb 13 14:58:30 EET 2015
On 13/02/2015 12:28, Dan Matei wrote:
> Ye, ye...
> Why would foaf:name and rdf:type be stable enough and crm:E1_CRM_Entity not ?
The issue which came up in the meeting was that the ISO editors had
altered the labels of some properties in the course of producing the
2014 update to the standard, and this meant that we would have to alter
our RDF identifiers to match. So it is a change which is outside our
control, which impacts on the utility of our Linked Data offering.
The extent to which we trust the stability of external frameworks is
another whole discussion, but suffice it to say that, unless we can
trust other peoples' identifiers, and use them, then there is no point
whatsoever to this Linked Data idea. :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Light <richard at light.demon.co.uk>
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:59:36 +0000
>> The Linked Data manifestation of the CRM is primarily designed to be
>> produced and consumed by machine processes, and we shouldn't be
>> concerned about how "obvious" it looks to human observers. We can
>> develop software tools to provide tooltip explanations etc. where they
>> are required.
> Of course, but we are not working with CRM (only) as end-users. I'm talking about our "masonic" jargon.
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig