[Crm-sig] ISSUE Form and persistence of RDF identifiers
martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Jan 23 18:07:22 EET 2018
On 1/22/2018 4:37 PM, Richard Light wrote:
> On 19/01/2018 13:36, Martin Doerr wrote:
>> 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.
> OK, thanks for the explanation. Though I don't understand why 'ISO'
> (who, exactly?) was doing active development work on the CRM. I
> thought that they simply took the SIG's work through the ISO
> formalization process.
ISO working group decisions supersede ours. They will listen to
arguments of our liaison people, but often it is better to accept than
to risk another year of discussions about a label.
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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.
> I think that this argument is perfectly valid for the 'Definition of
> CRM' document. However, by publishing an RDFS expression of the CRM
> we are moving, whether we like it or not, into the realm of
> 'utilities'. People are picking up and using our RDFS definitions in
> a variety of ways. In this particular implementation context, I would
> argue that we should ensure that there is a label-free version of each
> CRM class and property. Also, our guidance on the use of our RDFS
> implementation should recommend the use of this label-free version, on
> the grounds that we cannot guarantee the stability of the version
> which includes a label.
The issue was decided in the 27th meeting, as documented in the agenda.
We had produced label-free definitions with language labels, as you
propose, which caused an outcry from implementers that saw only numbers
and had not tools showing the display labels. Since there is no new
evidence to the issue, I'd propose to stay as we are and I'll try to
make the respective discussion thread accessible, so that all the old
arguments can be read again.
The current RDFS reads, e.g.:
as outcome of a long-standing discussion...........
> This talk of preferred labels and your mention of the labels in other
> languages leads me to wonder whether anyone has produced a SKOS
> version of the CRM.
Your suggestions well taken, but I do not see what this would offer in
contrast to the current international display labeling as shown above.
> This might be a useful exposition of the logic of the CRM, expressed
> in a format which is widely used and supported. We could have
> 'preferred labels' for each concept in as many languages as we like.
> A SKOS version would be no use for instance data, because each SKOS
> concept is itself an instance, in OWL terms, but it might be a
> powerful tool for expressing relationships between concepts in
> different schemes, i.e. exactly the purpose for which the CRM was
> originally created. Thoughts, anyone?
CRM classes are not**terms. The CRM is an ontology of relationships.
Classes are only auxiliary for relationships. Therefore we delete
classes without relationships. The classes belong to a completely
artificial language. Therefore I'd argue there is nothing like a
"preferred label". People must understand the scope notes, nothing
else. The purpose for which the CRM was and is created is to mediate
data structures, i.e. between relations connection "fields", not between
"terms". If this is not clear enough from the CRM introduction, please
let us know how to improve the text:-).
Therefore, to my opinion, it is impossible in SKOS to represent the
logic of the CRM. A pure class-class-mapping is usually misleading.
However the X3ML mapping language can map relationships in a declarative
All the best,
> Best wishes,
>> F10 was deliberately declared as "F" in FRBRoo to be an FRBRoo
>> concept "same as" E21, for didactic reasons. There is no continuity
>> Please let me know if there is anything wrong with this.
>> All the best,
> *Richard Light*
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
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...
More information about the Crm-sig