[Crm-sig] ISSUE Form and persistence of RDF identifiers
richard at light.demon.co.uk
Tue Jan 23 20:29:51 EET 2018
On 23/01/2018 16:39, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear All,
> Thank you very much for your engagement in these issues!
> Let me remark, for all those that find our practices alarming, that
> nobody of us is paid for the maintenance of the CRM.
> It is exclusively an engagement of volunteers and engagement of
> organizations for a common good.
> What is really alarming for me is the lack of users offering active
> work beyond criticism.
I think the recent discussions about RDF and the CRM go well beyond just
offering criticism. You'll find the document which I started on Google
which is an attempt at a self-contained 'how to' guide for CRM RDF
implementers, and which reflects the recent discussions on this topic.
I'm happy to develop this document further, and would welcome input from
others on this list. Conversely, if this document doesn't meet a real
need, I would be equally happy to be told why this is the case.
> We are now in the 22th year of development. If you want to have a CRM
> in which you can find some practices alarming in the future, better
> engage now and support us by coming to the meetings, learn
> understanding the methods and do editing work, tools development,
> didactic material etc;-).
> Besides inviting people to our meetings and learning in the
> discussions, we'll be very glad to offer intensive training in our
> and principles to anybody interested. Without the one or the other,
> some e-mail discussions may repeat old arguments in a fragmented way,
> never convincing, because the overall logic is not exposed. The art is
> balancing all practical requirements and a crystal-clear separation
> between the intellectual and technological levels.
> Interested people may be domain professionals with a long-term data
> modeling and standards mission, consultants, but in particular also
> post-graduate students that can combine their subjects with
> methodological research and become trainers themselves.
> So I hope some of you are alarmed enough to join us actively:-D!
> On 1/18/2018 2:29 PM, Richard Light wrote:
>> 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 I have always assumed that a superseded class or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,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig