Dear All,

Please let me summarizing the discussions about making rdfs:labelĀ  IsA P1 is identified by, without triggering any more discussion on it:

a) This declaration obviously is against syntactic practice in RDFS

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.

making rdfs:labelĀ  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 xsd:datatypes).

Then, users of OWL version that would create conflicts may omit this module, and write adequate query inferences to get the respective values.

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,         
 GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece