[Crm-sig] ISSUE Form and persistence of RDF identifiers

Gordon Dunsire gordon at gordondunsire.com
Thu Jan 18 14:35:04 EET 2018


Richard

 

I guess we were waiting for this discussion; we can only use what is documented in the CRM itself.

 

Cheers

 

Gordon

 

From: Richard Light [mailto:richard at light.demon.co.uk] 
Sent: 18 January 2018 12:18
To: Gordon Dunsire <gordon at gordondunsire.com>; 'Robert Sanderson' <RSanderson at getty.edu>; 'Jim Salmons' <jim.salmons at factminers.org>; crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Subject: ISSUE Form and persistence of RDF identifiers

 

Gordon,

Looking at the RDF XML for F10, I see (a) that you make F10 equivalent to the full F10_Person, as the core CRM does in its RDFS Schema and (b) when subclassing from the CRM core, you use the full form E21_Person:

<rdf:Description rdf:about= <http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbroo/F10> "http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbroo/F10">
...
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource= <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E21_Person> "http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E21_Person"/>
<owl:sameAs rdf:resource= <http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbroo/F10_Person> "http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbroo/F10_Person"/>
</rdf:Description>

So I think there are still issues to resolve in this area for FRBRoo.

Best wishes,

Richard

On 18/01/2018 09:21, Gordon Dunsire wrote:

All

 

It is for this reason that the IFLA declaration of URIs for the FRBRoo extension to CRM drops the name, and uses only the notation:

 

http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/94.html

 

Cheers

 

Gordon

…

 

-- 
Richard Light 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20180118/9e4f591f/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list