Dear all, I have a python script that already does this for CRM and the Linked Art extension.
The results of that script for Linked Art can be seen here: https://linked.art/ns/terms/ -- the entire ontology is returned when dereferencing the namespace https://linked.art/ns/terms/paid_amount.xml -- an individual term is returned when dereferencing its URI The script simply goes through the ontology files and cuts out each property and class in turn. Then a very simple redirect handler adds the mapping to the .xml files. You can see the results for CRM in a temporary branch: https://prov-updates--linked-art.netlify.com/ns/crm/P9_consists_of -- P9 (but the rest of the data is there too) Rob On 1/16/20, 4:33 AM, "Crm-sig on behalf of Martin Doerr" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Dear Francesco, At FORTH we will implement anything that is regarded good practice, and does not create a manual overhead we cannot manage. Volunteers to design whatever is needed? Best, Martin On 1/16/2020 12:45 PM, Francesco Beretta wrote: > Dear all, > > I have a question about CIDOC CRM URI management. > > > The last published version of CRMbase is 6.2.1. If I take the RDF > serialization, I find this base URI: > > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/ > > > If I sent this URI in the web: > > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E92_Spacetime_Volume > > I have an error message. > > > If I sent this URI in the web: > > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E5_Event > > I'm dereferenced on verson 5.0.4. > > > The machine cannot know which version of CRM is considered. > > > I have then the Erlangen URI: > > http://erlangen-crm.org/current/E92_Spacetime_Volume > > dereferencing on a document of the whole version. > > There are additional, earlier specific versions. > > > I have an issue in OntoME: which URI is to be used ? > > > We have a provisional, not dereferenced URI: > > https://dataforhistory.org/external-ontology/cidoc-crm-base-6-2/E92_Spacetime_Volume > > > It is there to avoid confusion but it's bad practice. > > > I'm asking myself what to do, and people adopting the CRM are asking > me these kind of questions, beeing not happy with this situation. > > > I think there was already a discussion about this point in the SIG. > > Shouldn't we find, and implement, a solution that meets current > requirements? > > The same issue is raised of course about the extensions familiy. > > > Best > > Francesco > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- ------------------------------------ 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 Vox:+30(2810)391625 Email: [email protected] Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content is safe. _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
