[Crm-sig] CIDOC CRM URI management

George Bruseker george.bruseker at gmail.com
Fri Jan 17 11:47:51 EET 2020

Dear all,

It seems a very fruitful discussion. Can I add some other 'complications'
into it.

Starting from what Detlev proposes:

> > For formal specifications such as ontologies, there is a widely adopted
> pattern for change management which goes like this:
> >
> > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/ always resolves to the latest
> version, while
> >
> > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/{version}/ always resolves to the
> particular {version} given in the URI.

This seems sensible. Here is a twist.

If we click the first link, it brings us to CIDOC CRM 5.0.4 which is the
last official ISO version.  In the meantime, we have a last official
community version which 6.2.1. Which one should this be pointing to?
Second, it points to the text version of the ontology in an html

For the appearance/presentation of the whole ontology, it is an html
representation of the main document that we create. This seems fine. Would
it be useful to be able to provide links explicitly at the top of this
document to click over to encodings? This way somehow we can better
consolidate and direct people to the RDF and the Erlangen OWL?

To me doing it this way, the Erlangen way, makes sense. So current always
points to what current is (once we define what current is). It would also
be good to be able to use the versioned edition (not currently supported
but presumably easy).

Up to here we talk about pointing to the whole ontology representation.

Then there comes the question of resolving to an individual concept:

As Richard points out, if you click it, it uses # and puts you to the right
anchor point in the overall html document. Is this the best practice?

I will point out that on the CRM site, there is also an entire architecture
wherein each version has its own overall presentation: e.g.:

and then you can click on an individual concept, eg:

The above follows a different URI pattern than suggested above, but is
doing the same work. This is run on a database that also calculates
incoming and outgoing properties, making the representation more full than
one gets from the flat html versino of our word doc. Functionally, it can
be argued it is more useful. Would it be possible to use this as the
dereferencing point and stay within best practices? If the URI pattern were
changed could we provide an easy was then to click over to the particular
representation of the element in OWL, RDFS or other representations that
exist for that version?

Finally to Thanasis' point.

"Resolving the class URI should return all versions of the class."

Currently we certainly don't do that. It definitely would not / could not
happen based on our doc/html presentation of the ontology. With the
database version I pointed to above, I suppose it would be relatively
straightforward to have the older versions of a class you are looking at
listed below as links. I guess it would be a specialist user who would care
about this (not to put the idea down, just to say).

I hope these questions are a useful contribution to the conversation.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20200117/c73232cf/attachment.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list