[Crm-sig] ISSUE Form and persistence of RDF identifiers
a.velios at gmail.com
Mon Jan 29 10:21:45 EET 2018
I think that offering examples in the form of 3M mappings would also be
On 29/01/18 02:39, George Bruseker wrote:
> Dear all,
> I think that an official RDF implementation recommendation guide as has
> been started would be a very useful document. I think the google doc
> format is a good place for formulating. We should aim to consider the
> resulting doc at the next SIG, hopefully with as much input from across
> the community as possible before hand. Having such a document should be
> a big help in eliminating unnecessary variance in implementation. A nice
> addition to the document would be to have example accompanying rdf.
>> On Jan 23, 2018, at 8:29 PM, Richard Light <richard at light.demon.co.uk
>> <mailto:richard at light.demon.co.uk>> wrote:
>> 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 Docs:
>> 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.
>> Best wishes,
>>> 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,
>> *Richard Light*
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
More information about the Crm-sig