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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Fri Jan 19 15:36:40 EET 2018


Dear All,

We never continue an alphanumeric designation when there is a 
significant change in definition. You can take for granted that 
continuing the
designation means that the change is not significant.

The case below (P148) should be due to an internal processing problem, 
and will never reoccur. It is characteristically the last property of 
this edition.
The reason, if I am not wrong, was that we got out of sync with the ISO 
version with the latest changes. Since the ISO team does in general not 
respect our
continuity concerns when there was parallel work, we had some times the 
bitter choice between our continuity and not to create a different 
branch from ISO for
typical reasons. Probably should have been explicitly justified.

If you sport any other reuse of an alphanumeric code, please inform us.

Since we have discussed for years the issues with changing labels, I 
repeat quickly the reasons:
Labels are taken for mnemonics, and people associate, even they 
shouldn't, semantics with it.
Therefore labels change when they render better the concept and serious 
misunderstandings can be reduced following explicit community requests.
The fact that the alphanumeric code is continued, marks absolutely clear 
that this is a change of name and not meaning.
Labels are also translated, and work as mnemonics of the respective 
language.
Therefore labels are not part of the definition.

The rest are considerations of use, and a question of utilities, which 
cannot dictate our practice.
Anyone working in an IT environment should have access to someone doing 
the trivial task of mapping label changes in his S/W,
if he has chosen to include labels in the URIs without "same_as" 
statements. Please consider in your requirements, that continuity of 
meaning is as important as comprehensibility. We cannot follow advise 
which considers only one side of the medal.

F10 was deliberately declared as "F" in FRBRoo to be an FRBRoo concept 
"same as" E21, for didactic reasons. There is no continuity break.

Please let me know if there is anything wrong with this.

All the best,

Martin


On 1/18/2018 2:38 PM, Gordon Dunsire wrote:
>
> All
>
> [My first response was blocked because the thread was “too long”; here 
> it is again]
>
> I agree with Philip [and Richard]
>
> If the domain or range of a FRBRoo property is changed, or there was a 
> significant change in definition, we would deprecate the old version 
> and declare a new URI. This hasn’t happened yet, but would beg the 
> question of what to use as a new URI – perhaps add a version number to 
> the alphanumeric part. For that reason we would advise the FRBR Review 
> Group to mint a new alphanumeric designation.
>
> Cheers
>
> Gordon
>
> *From:*Richard Light [mailto:richard at light.demon.co.uk]
> *Sent:* 18 January 2018 12:30
> *To:* Carlisle, Philip <Philip.Carlisle at HistoricEngland.org.uk>; 
> 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:* Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE Form and persistence of RDF identifiers
>
> 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 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
>     <%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 <mailto: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
>
>>
> -- 
> *Richard Light*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
  Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
                                                              |
                Center for Cultural Informatics               |
                Information Systems Laboratory                |
                 Institute of Computer Science                |
    Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
                                                              |
                N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,             |
                 GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece               |
                                                              |
              Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl           |
--------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20180119/f2487aed/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6074 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20180119/f2487aed/attachment-0001.jpg>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list