[Crm-sig] RDFS, XML and more

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Sep 9 19:43:03 EEST 2021

Dear Francesco,

This is a complex issue, which has been discussed in length in 2018 and 
basically was spelled out in the implementation guidelines for RDFS by 
Richrad Light and me.

All these questions you pose have been taken into account carefully. The 
text may need improvements, but I'd kindly ask all CRM-SIG members 
having respective questions to read it carefully and give us feedback.

Let me explain just a bit here from the side of logic, which is tricky 
and not the usual reasoning we apply within the CRM:

A superproperty is not equivalent to a subproperty. A superproperty is 
only implied by a subproperty.

  Therefore: Once E41 Appellation has no necessary property, an instance 
of E41 Appellation without having a property of its own does not violate 
the range of the superproperty. Its just a poor case.

(But it is completely true that rdfs:label is without properties. From 
the time of RDFS 1.1 on, which recommends the use of xsd values in 
literals, there are hidden properties in the label, such as the language 

This statement does also strictly not hold: "This class is subclass of 
Symbolic Object and Legal Object, therefore a E77 Persistent Item and 
not a E62 String which is a E59 Primitive Value",

because a) there is no axiom in CRM saying that Persistent Item and E62 
String are disjoint.
                 b) There is no declaration in the RDFS implementation 
that rdf:Literal equals E62 Sting or
                         E59 Primitive Value.

Obviously, RDFS makes rich use of Literal, packing stuff like WKT 
geometric values  into them, which are used in geo-enabled triple stores.

With the superproperty declaration, we say that whowever uses rdfs:label 
refers to a name (E41 Appellation). Unfortunately, RDFS does not allow 
us smarter things to do, but this gives the right answers to queries.

All the best,


On 9/9/2021 6:46 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
> There was unfortunately a copy-paste issue in my email.
> Le 09.09.21 à 17:35, Francesco Beretta a écrit :
>> The P1 is identified by (identifies) 
>> <https://ontome.net/property/1/namespace/1> property has E41 
>> Appellation as range. This class is subclass of Symbolic Object and 
>> Legal Object, therefore a E77 Persistent Item and not a E62 String 
>> which is a E59 Primitive Value.
>> Therefore an instance of E41 Appellation — rdfs:label —> '[label]', 
>> right ? So it crm:P1 cannot be equivalent to rdfs:label?
> I mean:
> An instance of E41 can have this property:
> E41 Appellation — rdfs:label —> '[label]', right ?
> So the crm:P1 property cannot be equivalent to rdfs:label, right?
> With my apologies
> Francesco
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

  Dr. Martin Doerr
  Honorary Head of the
  Center for Cultural Informatics
  Information Systems Laboratory
  Institute of Computer Science
  Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
  N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
  GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
  Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20210909/0c160457/attachment.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list