I also agree with Vincent and Richard. Given the very slow rate of change between “official” versions, and the prominence of the intermediate versions, I agree that the condition should be “in a public document” not “in an official version”.

 

http://www.cidoc-crm.org/get-last-official-release lists 5.0.4, dated 2011, as the last official release.

The “Current Version” link in the website sidebar lists version 6.2.3.

And the top most link in the home page under What’s New, refers to the upload of 6.2.6.

And http://www.cidoc-crm.org/versions-of-the-cidoc-crm lists 6.2.1 as the most recent published version, and the most recent published RDFS file.

 

So I believe that it is entirely reasonable for people to be confused as to which identifiers are stable and which are not, and thus we should treat the assignment of a number to a class or property as final. While in draft, it can be xxx as per our typical practice.

 

Rob

 

From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 5:54 PM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Reuse identifiers of obsolete entities never published

 

Vincent,

I strongly support your view that we should not re-use identifiers.  The only argument I could give for this practice is the desire for a nice neat sequence of identifiers: and we have already scuppered that aspiration by deprecating previously-published classes and properties (thereby causing gaps to appear). So, please, don't do it!

Thanks,

Richard

On 13/06/2019 16:29, Vincent Alamercery wrote:

Dear all,

during the SIG meeting in Paris, we added the new property "P177 assigned property type" (see http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.6_Definition_esIP.pdf).

This property reuses the already given identifier of the property "P177 ends within" which has been deprecated without ever belonging to a published version (see http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/p177-ends-within/version-6.2.2 and http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20-%20CRM_v6.2.6_%20Amendments.pdf)

We had a little discussion on whether or not to reuse this identifier already given. Maybe I'm picky but I'm not really comfortable with this practice. I suggest never to reuse an identifier for the following non-exhaustive reasons:

Best regards,

Vincent.

-- 
Vincent Alamercery
Pôle histoire numérique
@phn_larhra
 
LARHRA - UMR 5190
École normale supérieure de Lyon
15 parvis René Descartes
BP 7000
69342 Lyon cedex 07
France
 
Tel : +33 (0)4 37 37 60 73
vincent.alamercery@ens-lyon.fr
 
http://larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/membre/54
http://symogih.org/
http://dataforhistory.org/



_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

--
Richard Light