[Crm-sig] Proposal/though: Add URLs to official documentation

Nicola Carboni nic.carboni at gmail.com
Thu Jul 29 17:11:29 EEST 2021


Dear all,

Normally the link to the description already exists, but they only use 
property/classes number and they reflect CIDOC-CRM version 5.0.4

In fact, if you go to
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P2
you should be able to see an html version of the property description 
relative to P2 has type.

I noticed in the website that at the moment we can also point to the xml 
version of the documentation (which also use only property/classes 
number for the link). For example:
http://cidoc-crm.org/versions/cidoc_crm_v7.1.1.xml#P2 points to the 
documentation of the property P2_has_type as described in version 7.1.1 
of the documentation.

A simple solution would be to just redirect from the uri of a 
class/property to to the latest XML.
Example: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P2_has_type should redirect 
to the property description in the last version available of the 
documentation (http://cidoc-crm.org/versions/cidoc_crm_v7.1.1.xml#P2). 
Redirect should also be established for the property only present in RDF 
(e.g. P81a/P81b)


However, that opens up the problem of versioning. CIDOC-CRM in respect 
to many other ontologies is quite dynamic, so definitions changes and 
classes are added (or deleted) in time. The very first problem that come 
to mind is relative to the classes which have been deleted (e.g. 
Retrieve the scope note of E38 not knowing that it was deleted in 
version 6.2.9). However, even for the classes which have simply changed 
scope note, should we redirect to one specific version of the ontology 
(therefore reflecting the definition of that class in a specific moment 
in time when it was used) or simply point to the current one?

Because in case of the former solution, the namespace uri should include 
the version of CIDOC-CRM..



Best,

Nicola



--
Nicola Carboni
Visual Contagion
Digital Humanities - dh.unige.ch
Faculté des Lettres
Université de Genève
5, rue de Candolle
1211 Genève 4

On 26 Jul 2021, at 14:02, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Thanks for your feedback on this. So it sounds like there is interest 
> in
> discussing this as an issue in the next SIG.
>
> The proposal that was in my mind was that the specification document 
> (the
> word/pdf) would also have the URL/I as a hotlink in the documentation 
> of
> the class or property and that if you clicked this it would bring you 
> to
> the server which would guide you to the definition of the class in 
> some
> structured format be that RDFS or OWL or the detailed documentation 
> format
> on the website:
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Entity/E3-Condition-State/version-7.1.1 .
>
> But there may be other perceptions or ideas around the best way of
> including this conveniently and where.
>
> Best,
>
> George
>
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 8:03 PM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig <
> crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> wrote:
>
>> I agree with this. Shouldn't it be part of the RDF implementation 
>> document?
>>
>> Thanasis
>>
>> On 20/07/2021 15:37, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:
>>>
>>> Wholehearted agreement. Even if they're expressed in different ways 
>>> by
>>> different representations of the conceptual model, if we can 
>>> standardize
>>> the URI then an RDFS description and an OWL description of *the same
>>> URIs* can be used by different communities without breaking
>>> interoperability. If we get RDF*, or other declarative technological
>>> models for describing graph structures, then they too could describe 
>>> the
>>> use of the URIs in their contexts.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 6:03 AM George Bruseker via Crm-sig
>>> <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Dear all,
>>>
>>>     Many people try to use the CIDOC CRM in order to build 
>>> sustainable,
>>>     reusable data sources and connect into a wider linked open data 
>>> web.
>>>
>>>     When they do so, they would like to easily be able to find / use 
>>> the
>>>     URIs for the classes and properties that the standard declares.
>>>
>>>     The official documentation does not include this information in 
>>> a
>>>     handy way.
>>>
>>>     Proposal for discussion: include the URIs for the classes and
>>>     properties as clickable links that resolve to the online space 
>>> where
>>>     they are maintained in the word/pdf specification.
>>>
>>>     Discuss!
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>     George
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     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>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rob Sanderson
>>> Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
>>> Yale University
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>> 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
>>


> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210729/91d4694e/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list