[Crm-sig] ISSUE Recording an E41 in RDF

Carlisle, Philip Philip.Carlisle at HistoricEngland.org.uk
Thu Jan 18 12:29:12 EET 2018


Hi all,
I agree that using the number alone as the identifier would be the way forward particularly with regards to the changing of the name of a class or property.

However this would only work if the domain/range and scope of the class or property remain the same.

There is at least one instance of a property in the CRM where the number has been retained but the context of the property has completely changed.

The property in question is P148.

In the CRM version 4.2.2 we had:

P148 is identified by (identifies)

Domain:                                E28 Conceptual Object
Range:                   E75 Conceptual Object Appellation
Subproperty:        E1 CRM Entity. P1 is identified by (identifies): E41 Appellation
Quantification:    many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:           This property identifies a name used specifically to identify an E28 Conceptual Object.

This property is a specialisation of P1 is identified by (identifies) is identified by.

Examples:
§  The publication „Germanisches Nationalmuseum (GNM), Fuehrer durch die Sammlungen” (broschiert), Prestl 1995 (E73) is identified by ISBN 3-7913-1418-1 (E75)


According to the appendix of CRM 5.1.2 as amendments to CRM 4.2.5 the property P148  changed to

P148  has been changed

BEFORE

P148 is identified by (identifies)

Domain:                                E28 Conceptual Object
Range:                   E75 Conceptual Object Appellation
Subproperty:        E1 CRM Entity. P1 is identified by (identifies): E41 Appellation
Quantification:    many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:           This property identifies a name used specifically to identify an E28 Conceptual Object.

This property is a specialisation of P1 is identified by (identifies) is identified by.

Examples:
§  The publication „Germanisches Nationalmuseum (GNM), Fuehrer durch die Sammlungen” (broschiert), Prestl 1995 (E73) is identified by ISBN 3-7913-1418-1 (E75)
AFTER

P148 has component (is component of)
Domain:                                E89 Propositional Object
Range:                   E89 Propositional Object
Superproperty of:
Subproperty of:

Quantification:    (0:n,0:n)

Scope note:          This property associates an instance of E89 Propositional Object with a structural part of it that is by itself an instance of E89 Propositional Object.

Examples:             The Italian text of Dante’s textual work entitled “Divina Commedia” (E33) P148 has component The Italian text of Dante’s textual work entitled “Inferno” (E33)


In the document as amendments to CRM 5.0.3 we have, unbelievably, the following:

P149 is identified by (identifies)
It is decided to create a subproperty of P1 to connect E28 with E75 as follows

                P149 is identified by: E75

Domain:                                E28 Conceptual Object
Range:                   E75 Conceptual Object Appellation
Subproperty of:   E1 CRM Entity. P1 is identified by (identifies): E41 Appellation
Quantification:    many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:           This property identifies an instance of E28 Conceptual Object using an instance of E75 Conceptual Object Appellation.

Examples:             The German edition of the CIDOC CRM (E73) is identified by ISBN 978-3-00-030907-6 (E75)


In this instance if the URI http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P148 had been in use in any implementation based on CRM 4.2.2 the change in label, domain and range would not have been picked up by an automatic update.

Furthermore at no point would it have been obvious that all instances of http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P148, in the original meaning, should be replaced with http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P149

This may have been an oversight on the part of the CRM-SIG however I would strongly suggest that in future if the SIG want to change a property or class that they check with those system owners who’ve actually been using the CRM in the real world to ensure that these whims do not affect the smooth running of any current implementations.

If the aim of the CRM is to facilitate data exchange it would imply that each implementation should be able to rely on the properties and classes not changing their fundamental essence.

Re-use and re-assignment of numbers and labels is, to my mind, exceptionally bad practice.

Phil

Phil Carlisle
Knowledge Organization Specialist
Listing Group, Historic England
Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824

http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/
http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/

Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are valued for their skills and knowledge, and where communication, customer focus and working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do.



[Historic England Logo]<http://www.historicengland.org.uk/>


We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic environment, and protect it for the future. Historic England<http://bit.ly/1OuxROd> is a public body, and we champion everyone’s heritage, across England.
Follow us:  Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/HistoricEngland>  |  Twitter<https://twitter.com/HistoricEngland>  |  Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/historicengland/>     Sign up to our newsletter<http://bit.ly/1p49z1e>


Help us create a list of the 100 places which tell England's remarkable story and its impact on the world. A History of England in 100 Places<https://historicengland.org.uk/100places> sponsored by Ecclesiastical<http://www.ecclesiastical.com/fororganisations/insurance/heritageinsurance/100-places/index.aspx>.



This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of Historic England unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic England may become publicly available.

From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Gordon Dunsire
Sent: 18 January 2018 09:22
To: 'Robert Sanderson'; 'Richard Light'; 'Jim Salmons'; crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE Recording an E41 in RDF

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

From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr]<mailto:[mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr]> On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
Sent: 17 January 2018 16:52
To: Richard Light <richard at light.demon.co.uk<mailto:richard at light.demon.co.uk>>; Jim Salmons <jim.salmons at factminers.org<mailto:jim.salmons at factminers.org>>; crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE Recording an E41 in RDF


Here’s a quick addition …

The RDF representation uses the names of the classes and predicates in the URIs that identify them.  This means ;l
that when the names change, the URIs change and this invalidates all of the previous uses.  As the SIG considers only the number to be important, there is a mismatch of expectations around persistence and versioning.

Examples: E78_Collection versus E78_Curated_Holding and the recent thread about renaming translation_of.

Rob


From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Richard Light <richard at light.demon.co.uk<mailto:richard at light.demon.co.uk>>
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 3:46 AM
To: Jim Salmons <jim.salmons at factminers.org<mailto:jim.salmons at factminers.org>>, "crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>" <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE Recording an E41 in RDF


Jim,

Thank you for the encouragement. I have put the document in its current form at:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zCGZ4iBzekcEYo4Dy0hI8CrZ7dTkMD2rJaxavtEOET0/edit?usp=sharing

and it is editable by anyone with the link.  As you'll see, there is little that is new in there (although there might already be things to argue about!), but there is the outline of a more substantive document.  All suggestions and contributions gratefully received.

Richard
On 16/01/2018 23:42, Jim Salmons wrote:

Richard and SIG members,



On 16/01/2018, Richard Light wrote [rest of thread snipped for brevity]:



       “I have started an "issues with RDF" document, but on reflection it may be more constructive to make it into a first attempt at the guidance I am asking for.  I'll spend this afternoon pulling together material which I can easily find (e.g. the introductory comments in the RDF Schema document), and see what questions that exercise answers.”



The recent flurry of conversation relating to the interplay of #cidocCRM and #RDF is most interesting and timely, both to me personally and, I believe, to the larger SIG mission of championing our model’s utility to those who are interested but hesitant to explore and adopt it in practice.



== On the "Big Picture" Community Level... ==



1. Richard, I would be very interested to see your working document mentioned above as soon as it is available and would love to be involved in its draft evolution as I would qualify as a highly-motivated non-expert reader with good writing/editing skills.



2. I know that this mailing list is very focused on the "tight" conversations of core and significant modeling issues and their resolution. Given that wrestling with "#cidocCRM in #RDF" is itself a gnarly domain that will likely engender its own level of detailed conversation, and given that the SIG is currently having an in-person meeting on current issues and future directions, might it be appropriate, via the energy and interest at the current meeting, to form a Working Group on this topic and spawn its own mailing list with a charter to explore this topic and come back to the full SIG with draft documents (e.g. the afore-mentioned "primer") and recommendations in response to its charter? If such a working group were to be formed, I would very much like to be involved.



Putting on my "marketing hat" for a moment, I believe that the better we address #cidocCRM in #RDF, especially in terms of practical and example-based documentation and learning materials, that this will be the most important initiative we can take at this time to advance the adoption of the #cidocCRM in deployed and new #LOD systems/collections.



     Happy-Healthy Vibes to All and a Happy New Year,

     -: Jim:-



    www.researchgate.net/profile/Jim_Salmons<http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jim_Salmons>

    www.medium.com/@Jim_Salmons/<http://www.medium.com/@Jim_Salmons/> (my #CognitiveComputing/#DigitalHumanities articles)



P.S. As a postscript, I provide these comments with regard to my own personal learning and research experience...



== Optional on my Personal Interest in #cidocCRM & #RDF ==



At a personal level, some in the SIG know that I am a U.S.-based independent (and untrained) #CitizenScientist working my post-cancer #PayItForward Bonus Rounds to contribute my best efforts at the intersection of #DigitalHumanities and #CognitiveComputing. As a “software guy” I spent the bulk of my career as a Smalltalk developer and was particularly active during the initial wave of the software patterns movement. I was drawn to the #cidocCRM through my desire to apply ideas for metamodel-driven design of “self-descriptive executable model” frameworks from my prior Smalltalk work. I want to apply these ideas to my research that takes advantage of the emerging technology of graph databases. As a “pure OOP” Smalltalker, I had a “knee-jerk” reaction of disinterest in #RDF as its level of detail in notation reminded me too much of what we “pure OOPers” felt about the object-orientedness of C++ and Java.



I have been using Neo4j’s property graph database for my initial applied research but lately became disenchanted with it. As I surveyed my technology-provider options, I decided that my piqued interest in Linked Open Data warranted a reevaluation of #RDF and the available triple store products as a means to pursue my work in development of the MAGAZINE #GTS (ground-truth storage) format based on a #cidocCRM/FRBRoo/PRESSoo ontological “stack.”



I am now fully committed to redirecting my #cidocCRM-based research platform around #RDF (along w/ #TEI) primarily for these three reasons:



    *  I found Ontotext's GraphDB to be an excellent company and technology, both in its principal product and in its all-important documentation, self-driven learning resources, and its helpful tech support community.



    *  Once I was "bitten" by GraphDB, I began an intensive effort to come up to speed on #RDF through self-study and found the most incredibly-written and super-helpful book, "Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist: Effective Modeling in RDFS and OWL, 2nd Edition" by Dean Allemang and James Hendler (book companion website http://www.workingontologist.org).



    *  My interest in software patterns led me to Pascal Hitzler (http://www.pascal-hitzler.de/) and the ODPA, the Association for Ontology Design & Patterns and their website at http://ontologydesignpatterns.org with associated Google group mailing list at this shortened URL https://goo.gl/x6MJjM. Through my initial involvement in this community, I am excited to note that I will be attending #us2ts, the 1st U.S. Semantic Technologies Symposium in early March in Dayton, Ohio. Of course I will be bringing my interest in ontology design patterns and the #cidocCRM to this event which is geared toward developing a North American cross-discipline semantic technologies research community. More information on this event is here http://us2ts.org/.



Finally, I am also pleased to note that as part of my #PayItForward Bonus Rounds I served on the Program Committee of #DATeCH2017 and my fellow cancer-survivor wife and I had two papers accepted for a poster at this event, a PDF of which is available here https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtML1v0eUlpEgoAJ_FH6CMU5luOUBA.



To those who read this optional postscript... another



    Happy-Healthy Vibes,

    -: Jim :-





.



--
Richard Light
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20180118/5d114e82/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: imagefb9b69.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6074 bytes
Desc: imagefb9b69.JPG
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20180118/5d114e82/attachment-0001.jpe>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list