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

Richard Light richard at light.demon.co.uk
Thu Jan 18 14:29:33 EET 2018


Phil,

This is alarming.  I have always assumed that a superseded class or
property would simply be flagged as "deprecated" and a new one minted to
replace it. There is absolutely no need to re-use numbers, and I am
hoping someone will come forward to say that this was a mistake, and not
a change which accords with CRM-SIG policy.  Otherwise, as you say, we
can have no confidence in the CRM as a persistent RDF framework, whether
or not the class and property identifiers include a textual component. 
Is this an isolated case, or does anyone know of other cases where
domain and range (and indeed meaning) of a class or property has been
changed after its initial publication?

(The textual component is, in any case, only meant to be guidance and is
explicitly stated not to be unique: 'is identified by' below is a good
example of this.)

Best wishes,

Richard

On 18/01/2018 10:29, Carlisle, Philip wrote:
>
> 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 <#_E28_Conceptual_Object>
> Conceptual Object
>
> Range:                   E75 <#_E75_Conceptual_Object> Conceptual
> Object Appellation
>
> Subproperty of:   E1 <#_E1_CRM_Entity> CRM Entity. P1
> <#_P1_is_identified> is identified by (identifies): E41
> <#_E41_Appellation> 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 skillsand 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
> <%20http://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
>     <https://1drv.ms/b/s%21AtML1v0eUlpEgoAJ_FH6CMU5luOUBA>.
>
>      
>
>     To those who read this optional postscript... another
>
>      
>
>         Happy-Healthy Vibes,
>
>         -: Jim :-
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     .
>
>      
>
>  
>
> -- 
> *Richard Light*
>

-- 
*Richard Light*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20180118/2ca00a1f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: imagefb9b69.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6074 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20180118/2ca00a1f/attachment-0001.jpe>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list