"I want the version that has the class (E) or property (P) number plus the text in
the label and just the class (E) or property (P) number in the ID."
me too! This clarifies that the node with the ID 'E21' indeed represents
a CIDOC-CRM concept like 'E21_Person' and not the word 'Person'. However
we should clarifiy to the users, that they should not use a similar
strategy in their rdf instances: The person 'Pablo Picasso' should not
have an ID like '1495r3' and a label/appelation like
'1495r3_Pablo_Picasso'. This seems logical from our point of view, but
users may be tempted to do so.
Can't we leave out * and #...?
Kind regards,
max.
Dr. des. Maximilian Schich M.A.
adr.: Westendstrasse 80 | D-80339 München | Germany
tel.: +49-179-6678041 | skype: maximilian.schich
mail: [email protected] | home: www.schich.info
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if
any, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
On 13.12.2008 8:32 Uhr, Stephen Stead wrote:
I want the version that has the class (E) or property (P) number plus the text
in the label and just the class (E) or property (P) number in the ID.
Rgds
SdS
Stephen Stead
Tel +44 20 8668 3075
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Vladimir Ivanov
Sent: 13 December 2008 07:15
To: martin
Cc: crm-sig
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] RDFS class identifiers
Dear all,
I agree with Nick.
This approach realises the statement that
CRM is not about (Entity and Proprty) names
but about (common, language independent) concepts.
It also helps to manage multilingual version of the CRM when
we have EXX in scope notes and can extend it with "full name"
in a certain language.
Example:
<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="E21_">
<rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Person</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">[Engish text]... E21_ [Engish
text].......</rdfs:comment>.
...
<rdfs:label xml:lang="ru">????????</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:comment xml:lang="ru">[Russian text]... E21_ [Russian
text]...</rdfs:comment>.
----------------
But natural language descriptions with codes and names are simplier
than descriptions with codes only!
Dear Martin,
I'am afraid that "stars" (or any other symbol) in
xml atributes may lead to some problems:
1.<rdfs:label xml:lang="*en*">
Some systems do not recognize *en* as English (en).
2.<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="*#E21*" />
and<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="*E21*">
refer to different entities .
Maybe, we should write<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#*E21*" /> ?
Best regards,
Vladimir
2008/12/12 martin<[email protected]>:
Dear Nick,
I support this proposal as issue.
I'd prefer however this form:
<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="*E21*">
* *<rdfs:label xml:lang="*en*">*E21 Person*</rdfs:label>
* *<rdfs:label xml:lang="*fr*">*E21 Personne*</rdfs:label>
* *<rdfs:label xml:lang="*gr*">*E21 ???s?p?*</rdfs:label>
* *<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="*#E20*" />
* *<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="*#E39*" />
</rdfs:Class>
Opinions?
Best,
Martin
Nicholas Crofts wrote:
Dear all,
I've been doing some work recently using the CRM rdfs.
http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/rdfs/cidoc_v4.2.rdfs
The naming convention adopted for the class and property identifiers
strikes me as inconvenient in some respects.
Currently, the names used for the class and property identifiers contain
both the CRM code and the English label.
1. If the labels get changed at any time in the future, the identifiers
are broken
2. Non English speakers are put at a disadvantage
3. The rdf syntax is more verbose than necessary ... this may sound
trivial but that overhead can be huge when migrating large datasets.
4. The names have been mangled with underscores to make them respect
xml/rdf syntax.
I would suggest using just the codes (i.e. E1, P2, etc.) as class
identifiers and including the names (in various languages) as rdf:labels.
The result would like something like this:
<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="*E21*">
* *<rdfs:label xml:lang="*en*">*Person*</rdfs:label>
* *<rdfs:label xml:lang="*fr*">*Personne*</rdfs:label>
* *<rdfs:label xml:lang="*gr*">*???s?p?*</rdfs:label>
* *<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="*#E20*" />
* *<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="*#E39*" />
</rdfs:Class>
Rather than this:
<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="*E21.Person*">
* *<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="*#E20.Biological_Object*" />
* *<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="*#E39.Actor*" />
</rdfs:Class>
(NB I've removed the rdfs:comments for clarity)
It would be nice, of course, to be able to have both forms and define
equivalence relationships between them.
This could perhaps be done with the rdfs:isDefinedBy property? but I'm
not sure that it's meant for this.
Best wishes
Nick Crofts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Principle Researcher | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
