-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all,
this is my first post on this list and I want to reply to an email from Vladimir Alexiev he sent on November 20. last year (2012) [0]. [0] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/2012-November/001901.html I'm new to CRM (an ontologies), but I have to describe conservation objects (artifacts) with CRM. Because I'm new, I have some understanding questions. One is similar to the original from Vladimir. – So I will ask it here. Am 20.11.2012 11:57, Vladimir Alexiev wrote: > […] > > However, in any system that displays search results, it's important > to know two other preferred attributes of an object: > > 1. Preferred image: to be shown as thumbnail in a result list or > lightbox > > 2. Preferred label (name/title/appellation): to be shown as short > textual representation of the object > > […] > > 2. Following LOD best practice, we try to make rdfs:label for every > object. > > […] > > I wonder why CRM standardizes 0 but not 1 & 2. > > […] > > Let's say we have these attributes and want to add that they are > preferred: > > <obj> P1_is_identified_by <obj/id/1>; > > P102_has_title <obj/title/1>; > > P138i_has_representation <obj/image/1.jpg> > > […] Can someone explain (maybe by an example) me how (and when) to use the following properties correctly, please. * P1_is_identified_by * P48_has_preferred_identifier * P102_has_title I read the comments for this properties, but it's not really clear or me. Q1: Can P1_is_identified_by be used instead of rdfs:label (like Vladimir wrote above)? Q2: Is it correct to use P1_is_identified_by for any (internal or abstract) identifier, like an inventory number or so? (If yes, this identifier is a literal an not a new object …) Q3: Is P48_has_preferred_identifier usable as the 'real' title/name of an artefact? – The comment says "to identify an instance […] at the time this property was recorded". Does "recorded" means the first name/title I know? Q4: What is P102_has_title for? – I can use P1 and P48 … :-/ Finally I have a generally question: If I express a relation (i.e. P1; see example above) in RDF wit CRM. Do I have to express the inverse relation (P1i_identifies) in the object (<obj/id/1>) explicit or is the inverse relation always/automatically (inplizit) there? At the moment I think – excuse my lack of knowledge – that the answer of the last question makes the difference of CIDOC-CRM and Erlang-CRM. – In CIDOC-CRM I have to make the inverse relations explizit and in Erlang-CRM it is implizit. → Is it true …!? Excuse me for asking such ('stupid') questions (with such a rusty English)! Best regards, Kai Sommer PS: Don't hesitate to tell me if this is not the right list for asking such questions and show me the right one! :) - -- Fachhochschule Potsdam | http://www.fh-potsdam.de Informationswissenschaften (FB5) | http://iw.fh-potsdam.de Master Informationswissenschaften | 3. Semester sig: 1E6B 06F5 EBE5 6FE2 | pubkey: http://ma.ximi.se/fhpkey -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlI3POIACgkQHmsG9evlb+IrNgCfWxPm2NKk97NRUh23Z6QjzjUV MTEAn01tpFhmm8B1ZXQ50D4mRFwmO7cf =IaET -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
