[Crm-sig] URI Management [Issue 460]

Richard Light richardlight399 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 27 15:13:25 EEST 2021


On 27/09/2021 11:34, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We (at FORTH) have started working on the URIs management issue, i.e.
> on how to provide resolvable URIs for the different versions of
> CIDOC-CRM and its compatible models. We would like to hear you opinion
> about the following: 
>
> *(A) HAVING BOTH UNVERSIONED AND VERSIONED ONTOLOGY URIS  *
>
> The URI http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/> will always resolve to the *last
> official* version of CIDOC-CRM ('official' according to the
> definition here <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/versions-of-the-cidoc-crm>). 
> _*A question (also raised by George) is if we want to point to the
> last 'published' version*_ (which is /"a stable version of the
> standard and can be used for implementation, referencing and any other
> official purpose"/).

I'm happy with the idea of 'latest published' being supported. However,
we will need to think about what gets returned.

Currently, the latest official version (7.1.1) is later than the latest
'published' version. Am I right in assuming that this will not normally
be the case, i.e. that there will usually be a 'published' version which
is more recent than the last official version, which has been /both
/published /and /made to correspond to an official ISO release of the CRM?

If so, what do we do in the current situation?  Does a request for the
latest 'published' version return 7.1.1?

>
> In parallel, each version will have its own versioned URI, e.g., 
> http://cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/7.1.1/
> <http://cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/7.1.1/> for version 7.1.1, 
> http://cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/6.2.9/
> <http://cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/6.2.9/> for version  6.2.9, etc. etc.
>
>
> *(B) SERVING HTML OR RDF (BASED ON HTTP REQUEST TYPE)*
>
> Different content will be served based on the type of the HTTP
> request. So, if one asks for 
>    http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/> will get either the HTML content
> <http://cidoc-crm.org/versions/cidoc_crm_v7.1.1.html> of the last
> official version (using text/html content type), 
> or the RDFS of the last official version (using rdf/xml content type). 
>
> We will do the same for also the versioned URIs. 
>
> Now, if one requests a specific class or property, e.g.: 
>    http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E5_Event
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E5_Event>
> will either navigate to the part of HTML content of the last official
> version which describes this particular class
> <http://cidoc-crm.org/versions/cidoc_crm_v7.1.1.html#E5> (text/html
> request),
> or (for the case of rdf/xml) will get the entire RDFS of the last
> official version OR the star-view of that particular class (i.e.,
> subclasses, superclasses, incoming properties, outgoing properties). 
> *_So, a question here is if we want to provide the star-view or the
> entire RDFS_.* 
> In our opinion, it's much better to provide the star view. Otherwise
> it makes no sense to request the URI (using rdf/xml) including the
> class/property name since the result is the same for any
> class/property name. So, in this case, one should request 
>     http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/> for the complete rdfs file, and
>     http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E5_Event
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E5_Event> for the rdfs star view of E5_Event.
Yes, I support returning the star-view, for the reasons you give.
>
> We will do the same for also the versioned URIs. 
>
> *(C) BASE URI (NAMESPACE) FOR CLASSES AND PROPERTIES *
>
> Now the controversial issue :) 
>
> What base URI should we use for the classes and properties of each
> version when serving RDF content? There are three options:
>
> /Option B1/. Always use an unversioned base URI,
> i.e., http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/> for all ontology versions. This
> means that the class/property URIs are unversioned
> (e.g., http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E5_Event
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E5_Event>). 
> Then, we have to use 'owl:versionInfo' for providing information about
> the underlying cidoc-crm version (then we also expect that a KB will
> contain RDF data using only one particular cidoc-crm version).
>
> /Option B2/. Always use a versioned base URI, e.g., 
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/7.1.1/
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/7.1.1/> for the last official
> ontology version, 
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/6.2.1/
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/6.2.1/> for ontology version 6.2.1, 
> etc. etc.  
> This means that the class/property URIs are versioned
> (e.g., http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/7.1.1/E5_Event
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/7.1.1/E5_Event>).
> (This does not affect the fact that the unversioned ontology URI is
> resolvable)
>
> /Option B3/. Provide both, one RDFS file having unversioned base URI
> and one RDFS file having versioned base URI (similar to the approach
> followed by Erlangen). 
> In this case, the RDFS file having the unversioned base URI will be
> updated after each new ontology (official/published) release. 
>
> We (Pavlos and Elias) support B2 for the following reason: 
> When one builds a knowledge base (RDF dataset) using cidoc-crm, he/she
> considers a particular version of the model. There is no mix of model
> versions (or, at least, there should be no mix of model
> versions---unless there is a particular use case we are not aware of).
> Without considering a versioned base URI, it is very difficult (maybe
> impossible in some cases) to know which version of cidoc-crm was used
> for creating an RDF dataset. Also, option B3 does not always solve the
> problem. 
>
> Thanasis has already made a point about not using versioned base URI:
> /"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
> deprecated classes."/
> /
> /
> Thanasi, could you please elaborate more on this? It's not clear to us
> why/how reasoning considering a particular ontology version is
> affected when versioned URIs are used for the classes and properties.

I'm a simple soul (in this area, at least), and don't have an informed
view on how versioned URIs would work as regards reasoning.  However, my
instinct is to favour unversioned URIs. I'm not sure I would support
versioned URIs at all.  Just imagine the situation where 12 institutions
pool their CRM-encoded RDF resources to create a combined knowledge
base.  Now imagine that between them they use 8 different versions of
the CRM, and this is reflected in their URIs. How on earth could anyone
perform reasoning on the resulting rat's nest?

Putting it another way, if we are properly maintaining the ontological
commitments we make when defining a particular CRM class or property,
then its semantics should remain sufficiently stable over time for 'old'
assertions to remain valid/meaningful when seen through the lens of the
'current' CRM.

Thanks for working on this.

Richard

>
> *(D) WHAT WE DO WITH RENAMED AND DEPRECATED CLASSES*
>
> /1/ Renamed/: When resolving a class/property (of a specific version)
> which has been renamed, we can point the user to the information about
> the renamed class (since semantics stay the same). For example:
> when asking for http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Collection
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/7.1.1/E78_Collection>,
> users will get information
> about http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Curated_Holding
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/7.1.1/E78_Curated_Holding> (once URI resolving has been implemented)
>
> /2/ Deprecated/: When resolving a class/property (of a specific
> version) which has been deprecated, we (Pavlos and Elias) suggest not
> returning anything (404 response code).  In our opinion, this makes
> sense since the ontology version does not anymore contain the
> requested class/property. In the case of HTML content type, we can
> also point the user to the Migration Instructions (page 229
> <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/cidoc_crm_v.7.1.1_0.pdf>).
> Any comments?
>
> *(E) COMPATIBLE MODELS * 
>
> The plan is to follow the same approach for the compatible models.
> Here, it seems that having versioned URIs for the ontology and the
> extension models solves the problem of how to point to specific
> versions (as mentioned by Francesco). We just need to include the
> versioned namespaces of the considered models in the RDFS.   
>
> Looking forward to your comments and feedback! 
>
> Best regards,
> Pavlos and Elias
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Pavlos Fafalios
> Postdoctoral research fellow
> Project ReKnow <https://reknow.ics.forth.gr/> (MSCA Individual
> Fellowship) 
>
> Centre for Cultural Informatics / Information Systems Laboratory
> Institute of Computer Science (ICS)
> Foundation for Research and Technology (FORTH)
>    and
> Visiting Lecturer
> Department of Management Science & Technology (MST),
> Hellenic Mediterranean University (HMU)
>
> Address: N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, 70013 Heraklion, Greece
> Email: fafalios at ics.forth.gr <mailto:fafalios at ics.forth.gr> Tel: +30-2810-391619 
> Web: http://users.ics.forth.gr/~fafalios/
> <http://users.ics.forth.gr/~fafalios/>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Richard Light*
richardlight399 at gmail.com
/@richardofsussex/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20210927/71d133da/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list