[Crm-sig] Reuse identifiers of obsolete entities never published

George Bruseker bruseker at ics.forth.gr
Tue Jun 18 01:03:59 EEST 2019


I also support there not being reuse of numbers. There is no end of numbers to choose from.

Best,

George


------------------------------------------------------
Dr. George Bruseker
Coordinator

Centre for Cultural Informatics
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
Science and Technology Park of Crete
Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece

Tel.: +30 2810 391619   Fax: +30 2810 391638   E-mail: bruseker at ics.forth.gr
URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

> On Jun 14, 2019, at 9:45 AM, Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu> wrote:
> 
>  
> I also agree with Vincent and Richard. Given the very slow rate of change between “official” versions, and the prominence of the intermediate versions, I agree that the condition should be “in a public document” not “in an official version”.
>  
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/get-last-official-release <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/get-last-official-release> lists 5.0.4, dated 2011, as the last official release.
> The “Current Version” link in the website sidebar lists version 6.2.3.
> And the top most link in the home page under What’s New, refers to the upload of 6.2.6.
> And http://www.cidoc-crm.org/versions-of-the-cidoc-crm <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/versions-of-the-cidoc-crm> lists 6.2.1 as the most recent published version, and the most recent published RDFS file.
>  
> So I believe that it is entirely reasonable for people to be confused as to which identifiers are stable and which are not, and thus we should treat the assignment of a number to a class or property as final. While in draft, it can be xxx as per our typical practice.
>  
> Rob
>  
> From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Richard Light <richard at light.demon.co.uk>
> Date: Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 5:54 PM
> To: "crm-sig at ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Reuse identifiers of obsolete entities never published
>  
> Vincent,
> 
> I strongly support your view that we should not re-use identifiers.  The only argument I could give for this practice is the desire for a nice neat sequence of identifiers: and we have already scuppered that aspiration by deprecating previously-published classes and properties (thereby causing gaps to appear). So, please, don't do it!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Richard
> 
> On 13/06/2019 16:29, Vincent Alamercery wrote:
> Dear all, 
> during the SIG meeting in Paris, we added the new property "P177 assigned property type" (see http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.6_Definition_esIP.pdf <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.6_Definition_esIP.pdf>).
> 
> This property reuses the already given identifier of the property "P177 ends within" which has been deprecated without ever belonging to a published version (see http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/p177-ends-within/version-6.2.2 <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/p177-ends-within/version-6.2.2> and http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20-%20CRM_v6.2.6_%20Amendments.pdf <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20-%20CRM_v6.2.6_%20Amendments.pdf>)
> 
> We had a little discussion on whether or not to reuse this identifier already given. Maybe I'm picky but I'm not really comfortable with this practice. I suggest never to reuse an identifier for the following non-exhaustive reasons:
> 
> Even it's highly not recommended to use a draft version of CIDOC CRM, an entity exists from the moment it appears on a public document. It could then be potentially used by anyone. In a given namespace, an identifier must have to be unique.
> For documentation reason, it's easier to have unique identifiers too to avoid speaking of "the old P177" or "the new P177". For instance, in the issue #345, how to know of which P177 property we are talking about? Think "the new P177" could be deprecated too one day...: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-345-properties-having-domain-or-range-deprecated-classes <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-345-properties-having-domain-or-range-deprecated-classes>
> Numbers are infinite, we don't need to save them. ;-)
> Best regards,
> 
> Vincent.
> 
> -- 
> Vincent Alamercery
> Pôle histoire numérique
> @phn_larhra
>  
> LARHRA - UMR 5190
> École normale supérieure de Lyon
> 15 parvis René Descartes
> BP 7000
> 69342 Lyon cedex 07
> France
>  
> Tel : +33 (0)4 37 37 60 73
> vincent.alamercery at ens-lyon.fr <mailto:vincent.alamercery at ens-lyon.fr>
>  
> http://larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/membre/54 <http://larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/membre/54>
> http://symogih.org/ <http://symogih.org/>
> http://dataforhistory.org/ <http://dataforhistory.org/>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
> -- 
> Richard Light
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20190618/85883d63/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list