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

Athanasios Velios 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 
helpful.

Thanasis

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.
> 
> Best,
> 
> George
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 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:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zCGZ4iBzekcEYo4Dy0hI8CrZ7dTkMD2rJaxavtEOET0/edit
>>
>> 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,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>>
>>> 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 
>>> methods
>>> 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!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> martin
>>>
>>> On 1/18/2018 2:29 PM, Richard Light wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *Richard Light*
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list