Richard
I guess we were waiting for this discussion; we can only use what is documented in the CRM itself. Cheers Gordon From: Richard Light [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 January 2018 12:18 To: Gordon Dunsire <[email protected]>; 'Robert Sanderson' <[email protected]>; 'Jim Salmons' <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: ISSUE Form and persistence of RDF identifiers Gordon, Looking at the RDF XML for F10, I see (a) that you make F10 equivalent to the full F10_Person, as the core CRM does in its RDFS Schema and (b) when subclassing from the CRM core, you use the full form E21_Person: <rdf:Description rdf:about= <http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbroo/F10> "http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbroo/F10";> ... <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource= <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E21_Person> "http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E21_Person"/> <owl:sameAs rdf:resource= <http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbroo/F10_Person> "http://iflastandards.info/ns/fr/frbr/frbroo/F10_Person"/> </rdf:Description> So I think there are still issues to resolve in this area for FRBRoo. Best wishes, Richard On 18/01/2018 09:21, Gordon Dunsire wrote: All It is for this reason that the IFLA declaration of URIs for the FRBRoo extension to CRM drops the name, and uses only the notation: http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/94.html Cheers Gordon … -- Richard Light
