Hi,Attached is an updated version of the draft 6.0 (Jan 2015) RDF, with additional statements for each class and property with "short form" identifiers. The new statements corrently cross-refer to other "short form" declarations. There is an owl:sameAs statement to affirm that the "short form" identifiers are semantically identical to the original ones (which are retained). While I was in there, I generated owl:inverseOf statements between the "forward" and "back" versions of each property.
Included in the zip file is the XSLT transform which I wrote to achieve this: you can apply that to future updates using the XSLT 1.0 processor of your choice.
Does this "dual publication" approach keep everyone happy? (I'm not expecting "yes" as the answer, but please do comment!)
Richard On 13/02/2015 15:46, martin wrote:
Dear All, I believe ultimately there is only one answer. As long as we mess up language labels with identifiers we are doomed. As CRM-SIG we have proposed to use persistent identifiers exclusively based on E and P numbers. It is up the implementers to work out solutions that take that into account. If implementers cannot do that currently, or mess up issues of persistency and readability, it out of our control, and we can only wait until the RDF world is ready to separate the language label from the identifier. Opinions? Cheers, Martin On 13/2/2015 2:58 μμ, Richard Light wrote:On 13/02/2015 12:28, Dan Matei wrote:The issue which came up in the meeting was that the ISO editors had altered the labels of some properties in the course of producing the 2014 update to the standard, and this meant that we would have to alter our RDF identifiers to match. So it is a change which is outside our control, which impacts on the utility of our Linked Data offering.Ye, ye... Why would foaf:name and rdf:type be stable enough and crm:E1_CRM_Entity not ?The extent to which we trust the stability of external frameworks is another whole discussion, but suffice it to say that, unless we can trust other peoples' identifiers, and use them, then there is no point whatsoever to this Linked Data idea. :-)Richard-----Original Message----- From: Richard Light<[email protected]> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:59:36 +0000The Linked Data manifestation of the CRM is primarily designed to be produced and consumed by machine processes, and we shouldn't be concerned about how "obvious" it looks to human observers. We can develop software tools to provide tooltip explanations etc. where they are required.Of course, but we are not working with CRM (only) as end-users. I'm talking about our "masonic" jargon. Dan _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig-- *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*
<<attachment: cidoc_crm_v6.0-shortids-2015January.zip>>
