Hi Dominic! > We need to work carefully through the issues associated with RDF but > ultimately these issues have little to do with > CRM. From a mapping perspective we are completely content with our CRM > implementation within RDF [in ResearchSpace]. > many issues can be solved fairly easily with some additional tools and > infrastructure. However, it is extremely important for that the > process is not overtaken by RDF issues.
I think that in the COST action we should have a WG on CRM RDF representation. There are many CRM RDF issues (especially at the low level) that need discussion and decision. Such issues have been discussed many times at the mailing list. Here are some off the top of my head: - class and property naming - inverses and transitive - P81a,b and P82a,b properties for representing Time-Spans, their naming (e.g. see attachment) - practice for representing dates (e.g. spurious precision is undesirable) - EquivalentClass - EX_Association and PX_property extending E13 so you can specify which property you are talking about Some of these have been resolved in the SIG, others in ResearchSpace... But none of them are definitive, described in one consistent place, and accepted by a community. > I have written on the subject of how technologists have isolated themselves > from the curatorial > community and in their haste have tried to fit things into technology boxes > only to lose the very stakeholders that they were meant to help in > the first place. The CRM is a very important component in the connection > between humanities research and computing Having a WG on RDF *does not preclude* having other WGs that are more oriented towards humanists. I should clarify what a COST WG is: it's a focus of activity within a COST action. It does not by itself get any authority or certifiation power. Any CRM RDF definitions will be considered and approved by the CRM SIG As I wrote before: "It's not my intention to create any diverging efforts. (But it is my intention to drive practical RDF issues aggressively, since for me there's no CRM but RDF-represented CRM :-)" > Therefore, in my personal view (for the voting pot!) a COST action that is > targeted on CRM adoption should be aimed at supporting > initiatives with museums, libraries and archive professionals who will never, > in any significant numbers, attend the academic conferences or > read academic technical papers Are you saying that a WG on CRM RDF is not needed? I am surprised, I think that you underestimate the importance of resolving RDF issues. This is borne by my experience in ResearchSpace, after all most of the RDF solutions in ResearchSpace so far were proposed by me. > I am sure that the workshop in > Malta last year was useful and I would have enjoyed it - but I couldn’t > justify going even with financial help. At the CRMEX workshop there was a strong feeling and consensus that a lot can be done if we work together on practical issues. You can ask Maria Theodoridou of FORTH or Trond Aalberg who graciously undertook to organize the next CRMEX. Based on Maria's report, Martin wrote this: "My colleague Maria told me that CRMex was very successful. My congratulations and thanks! I am very glad to hear that an initiative was proposed to discuss implementation issues." > not on discussing RDF issues which is done to death in large numbers of > meetings and forums for which > large numbers of linked data people already attend - and which have little > interest for my stakeholders. The problem is that very few people who understand CRM in-depth, also understand RDF, OWL and LOD in-depth !! How many datasets can you point out that are: CRM-compliant, don't have RDF flaws, comply with LOD publication best practices, and are valid? If you think that issues related to the RDF implementation of CRM are trivial or solved, you are quite wrong. If you are saying they are not interesting for you, that's fine: don't go to to such meetings of the COST action! Send Barry to RDF meetings, and you organize and attend humanities-oriented meetings :-) I'll attend both :) > I have prioritised going into cultural organisations and talking directly to > the people for who the > CRM standard was designed to support and benefit. This seems to me the > priority that could well be supported by initiatives like COST. By its nature COST actions are inclusive. The annual budget is say 150k EUR/year (depends on number of participating countries), and you can organize a lot of meetings, workshops and schools with this money. I completely agree humanities-oriented meetings must be organized. But if you think RDF-related meetings should not be organized, this is not the COST action that I proposed and that the CRMEX workshop discussed. > would certainly be helpful for COST to also support the > CRM-SIG and CRM LAB initiatives which have a direct relationship with the > meetings that I attend and organise as a museum > professional. It would be great if we could get more museum professionals > along to the meetings to discuss use cases for which the CRM > can provide answers (the original objective of the CRM) and have financial > help for this alongside helping our existing membership get to > CIDOC CRM meetings and to help our membership organise workshops with museums > and libraries. Yes, all of this is in scope! Cheers! Vladimir
ecrm_time_spans.ttl
Description: Binary data
