[Crm-sig] P90 etc.

Robert Sanderson RSanderson at getty.edu
Thu Mar 8 21:08:39 EET 2018


Something like:

Domain (in CRM terms): Symbolic Object
Range (in CRM terms): E62 String (represented as xsd:string in RDF)
Quantification: one to many

Scope Note:

This property is used to record the symbols used, with or without embedded markup such as HTML or other formatting instructions, to represent in digital form the resource that the property is associated with.

It should be regarded as a short-cut for the more fully developed path of P3 has note with a P3.1 has type that defines the type as an inline representation of the resource, rather than a description or commentary about the resource.

Examples:

·         The Appellation (E41) of a Person (E21) has a /value/ of “Martin”

·         The Identifier (E42) of a Man Made Object (E22) has a /value/ of “P-1998-27”

·         The Linguistic Object (E33) used to record a materials statement of a Man-Made Object (E2) has a /value/ of “ink on canvas”


I would say that the use is consistent across the examples I listed (other than the LOV datasets, about which I know nothing), with some additional usage for non string values that would be more closely represented in CRM with P90 has value. And while I would prefer consistency, I’m not proposing we do that :)

Rob

From: Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr>
Date: Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 10:46 AM
To: Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu>, Richard Light <richard at light.demon.co.uk>
Cc: George Bruseker <george.bruseker at gmail.com>, crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P90 etc.

Dear Rob,

I am impressed:-).

Please specify the use they make of rdf:value.
Is there any other definition than that in RDFS 1.1 ?
Is the use between those examples consistent?
What precisely is it used for?
Can we define how it relates to other CRM properties?

Best,

martin

On 3/8/2018 8:26 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

Well … as a response to that call …

CRM implementations using rdf:value:


·         The American Art Collaborative uses rdf:value, consisting of Amon Carter Museum of American Art, Archives of Americant Art (Smithsonian), Autry Museum of the American West, Colby College Museum of Art, Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, Dallas Museum of Art, Indianapolis Museum of Art, Thomas Gilcrease Institute of American History and Art, National Portrait Gallery (Smithsonian), National Museum of Wildlife Art, Princeton University Art Museum, Smithsonian American Art Museum, Walters Art Museum, Yale Center for British Art

·         The Getty Museum and Research Institute use rdf:value

·         The National Museum of Australia uses rdf:value

·         The Georgia O’Keefe Museum uses rdf:value

·         Historic England uses rdf:value (IIRC, Phil can confirm or deny)


Implementers of the IIIF specifications use rdf:value for the same purpose, which comprises hundreds of organizations around the world, primarily in academia and cultural heritage.  http://iiif.io/api/presentation/

Implementers of the W3C Web Annotation Data Model use rdf:value for the same purpose.  https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#embedded-textual-body

According to lov.okfn.org, rdf:value is used in 44 datasets known to it , with 4.6M occurrences.  For comparison, crm:P3_has_note has no known usage in LOV.

If you want just pure usage numbers … schema:value would probably win hands down. Schema is implemented in 20-30% of all web pages.  And has, relatively recently, made process changes to be sufficiently stable to be accepted as a normative reference specification by the W3C.  However the semantics are even less precisely defined than rdf:value, and W3C is a much more likely standards body than Google.

YMMV.

Rob


-------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20180308/e36db33c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list