[Crm-sig] New Issue: Common Policy / Method for Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

Zoe Schubert zoe.schubert at uni-koeln.de
Wed Mar 30 01:10:19 EEST 2022


Vielen Dank für die Nachricht!

Ich bin am ersten Werktag nach dem 15.04. wieder erreichbar. Die Nachricht wird nicht weitergeleitet.

Mit besten Grüßen
Zoe Schubert

Am 24.03.2022 um 12:23 schrieb Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>:

> Dear George, all,
> 
> The new version of PC classes file (for CRMbase version 7.1.1) has been already produced (as discussed in the last meeting) and will be soon available through the crm website (see issue 567). 
> 
> Thinking of it again:  
> Since the namespace for the PC classes is the same with that of the base classes/properties, why not including them directly within the base RDFS? (i.e. providing at the end a single rdfs file that also includes the PCs). 
> Properties of properties are part of the official documentation (of the base model, or of an extension), so why not including the corresponding PC classes in the same RDFS file instead of providing and maintaining a second file? (this applies for both the base model and the extensions)
> 
> This is just a suggestion without knowing any discussions, or decisions made, when implementing the PC classes for the first time several years ago (there might be a good reason for having a second file...). 
> 
> Best regards,
> Pavlos 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:41 AM George Bruseker via Crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Subsequent to another thread I started here I am proposing that there be a conversation about having a standard policy and method for creating, documenting and making available the .1 properties for base and its extensions in the RDF serialization. At present to my knowledge the PC classes are only available for CRMBase and relative to version 6.2.1. Other extensions however also use .1 constructions and, moreover, CRMbase moves forward and its PC classes should hypothetically move with it. Therefore, I propose we discuss, create and implement a common policy for creating this rdf derivative to support rdf implementations that adopt the .1 constructions.
> 
> Best,
> 
> George
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 
> 
> -- 
> Pavlos Fafalios
> 
> Postdoctoral researcher (Marie Curie IF - Project ReKnow)
> Centre for Cultural Informatics & Information Systems Laboratory
> Institute of Computer Science - FORTH
>    
> and
> 
> Visiting Lecturer
> Department of Management Science & Technology
> Hellenic Mediterranean University
> 
> Address: N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, 70013 Heraklion, Greece
> Email: fafalios at ics.forth.gr 
> Tel: +30-2810-391619 
> Web: 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 4388 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20220330/daa802a9/attachment-0001.bin>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list