On 21/01/2014 18:37, martin wrote:
Hi Richard,
CRM-SIG distinguishes the authoritative textual definition of the
CIDOC CRM, which is at regular intervals (5 years...) submitted to ISO
as draft for updating ISO21127, from implementation recommendations.
Global compatibility with the CRM is not defined at any encoding
level, as explained in the standard itself.
Implementation recommendations are much narrower in scope than the CRM
definition. The
guideline in [1] _is a valid CRM_SIG recommendation_. It serves
compatibility in a narrower RDFS world.
THe RDFS version of the CRM itself is a recommendation, and not part
of the DEfinition of the CRM.
The recommendation in [1] should be integrated into the next RDFS
version recommended by CRM-SIG.
Martin,
I'm perfectly happy with the principle that the authoritative CRM floats
above implementation details, and is the document which goes through the
ISO review process. I'm also happy with the idea that implementation
recommendations are more specific in scope. However, I don't think that
this should lead to a sense that implementation recommendations are in
any sense second-class citizens in the CRM world, or that they are
"optional extras".
Current shortcomings:
a) The CRM-SIG Website needs a better way of making its
recommendations visible. This is envisaged by mid 2014.
Certainly, the current approach is confusing. For example, the various
RDF[S] versions of the CRM, plus the guideline [1] which I mentioned,
appear on the page called "Official release of the CRM". As you say,
they are /not/ the official CRM, so the entries for each then have to
say "this is NOT a definition of the CRM ...". In fact, looking down
the "Official release" page, most of the entries are in fact different
RDF or OWL encodings. :-) Given that there is a page "Previous
versions", and a page "Working drafts", I can't see why the "Official
release" page should ever have more than one thing on it. (This is
perhaps being unkind - I can see how these pages have developed over
time, and for example "Working drafts" appears to have been abandoned
some years ago.)
If there was an actual page called "Resources" (and not just a menu
heading), it could explain the CRM ecosystem clearly and succinctly,
with links to each type of resource. If there was a page called
"Implementation recommendations", the various RDF encodings of the CRM
could go there. This would remove the need for the apologetic "this is
NOT the CRM" notices.
In general, I think this part of the site is crying out for a succinct
explanation of what is there, and why it is there. At present it is
just a list of resources for those "in the know".
b) The exact (functional!!) scope of implementation recommendations
has not been defined. Here someone could identify quite distinct use
cases.
I think we need to start with a firm, /positive/, definition of what an
"implementation recommendation" (henceforth "IR") is. (Something better
than "this is NOT a definition of the CRM".) We then need to state
which IRs we have done work on, and present the current version and
history of each. I suggest that we use the same page layout and
structure for the official CRM and for each IR, e.g.:
* short description of scope and purpose
* list of those responsible; contact details
* current official version
* working drafts; work in progress
* earlier versions
Am I right in thinking that the RDF[S] work is the only IR that we
actually have?
I would define the use case for the RDF version of CRM as being "to
enable CRM concepts to be used in Linked Data applications". Discuss ...
As well as adopting a positive approach to the documentation of IRs, I
think we also need to ensure that their development is subject to the
same rigour as the core CRM. For example, the recommendation [1] was
agreed in November 2011, and so should have been taken into account in
the approved RDF encoding dated November 2012. This suggests that we
maybe need a separate issue tracking system for each IR, as well as one
for the core CRM.
Help welcome!
I hope the above is helpful.
As regards the web site, didn't you say that only you could update it?
If so, all we can do is make suggestions as to what changes should be
made. In general, I would suggest that "less is more" - imagine the
site from the perspective of someone who lands there for the first time,
wanting to find out about the CRM, and give them a clearly explained
path through to relevant information with as few clicks as possible.
Best wishes,
Richard
Best,
Martin
On 21/1/2014 7:34 ??, Richard Light wrote:
Hi,
Does that mean that the conclusions of [1] are not to be supported by
the CRM itself? If you recall, we have discussed the subproperties
P81a etc. and pointed out that they are not in the official CRM. If
this is to remain the case, where does that leave the advice in [1]?
Thanks,
Richard
[1]
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/How_to%20implement%20CRM_Time_in%20RDF.pdf
On 20/01/2014 09:21, Chryssoula Bekiari wrote:
Dear All
You may find the new draft version 5.1.2 of CIDOC CRM in
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/official_release_cidoc.html
FYI
Chryssoula
--
*Richard Light*
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | 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) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 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
--
*Richard Light*
