[Crm-sig] CIDOC CRM URI management
thanasis at softicon.co.uk
Fri Jan 17 13:44:38 EET 2020
> My underlying assumption would be that the default thing served up would
> be html, but you could reach the other representation consistently
> through adding an appropriate ending or whatever would be most
> suitable... but that people looking at the html should have a shiny red
> button type clue that there is another way to retrieve the info which is
> for example as owl.
Yes, I agree.
> > 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.: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Version/version-6.2.1
> I think this should be maintained but not used as URIs for classes.
> Why would you argue against using it as the resolving point for
> individual classes?
Because it includes versions. These are necessary when working across
different versions but I do not think versions are needed for classes.
> Currently this is not supported at all, correct? I mean you always point
> at a version. So you would suggest that 'current' should be 'versionless'?
I am suggesting that classes do not need versions at all. Doing
reasoning on a per class and per version basis would be bad practice,
no? One would expect that the whole RDF/OWL representation would be used
for reasoning. I think class URIs are only used as identifiers. This
also avoids the problem of ensuring correct older versions for
> How I understood Erlangen to work is that it just makes the versionless
> URI redirect to the current. So I thought the idea would be that
> 'current' resolves to the present official (whatever the present
> official means). If a class has been deprecated then I guess it would
> have to revert to the last official in which it had existed?
> All the best,
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
More information about the Crm-sig