Please let me summarizing the discussions about making rdfs:label
IsA P1 is identified by, without triggering any more discussion on
a) This declaration obviously is against syntactic practice
b) It appears to be a logically correct rendering of the CRM,
because we can infer that uses of Literal via rdfs:label are
instances of E41 Appellation
c) The ontological interpretation of the (textual)
definition of RDFS for rdfs:label supports the interpretation
hat uses of Literal via rdfs:label
are instances of E41 Appellation
d) obviously it does not support inheritance of properties, but
this is not fixed by the CRM FOL definition.
e) RDF platforms and SPARQL appear to behave as expected when
confronted with the statement
f) Usual OWL versions seem to cause conflicts with this
statement, whereas OWL full does not strictly separate Literals
from objects anymore.
g) The latter is serious.
i) making rdfs:label IsA
P1 is identified by is a CRM-SIG decision from 2018. No new
evidence since then.
Therefore I propose to follow Robert's proposal, to put into a
separate RDFS module the statements that declare subproperties
of P1 is identified by and in RDFS have range Literal (albeit in
practice filled with syntactic structures, such as
Then, users of OWL version that would create conflicts may omit
this module, and write adequate query inferences to get the
Other users may use both files in combination.
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,