Right, so we are defining a new CRM property, with domain E90 Symbolic Object
and range E62 String. Agreed? I suggest that we call it "Pxxx has string
value" to make its purpose clearer.
E62 String is defined more widely than the strings we are currently
considering: it includes "bitmaps, vector graphics, etc.". Is this a matter of
concern? My own initial thought is that the scope note for Pxxx in the CRM
document should be as generic as the definition of E62, so they are mutually
compatible, something like:
This property contains the symbolic content of the Symbolic Object, expressed
as an E62 String. The "level of symbolic specificity" by which the String is
interpreted should conform to the type of the Symbolic Object.
Then we could have Rob's examples.
Once this simple property is in place in the CRM, we can update the RDF
implementation guidelines to indicate that in the RDF environment we represent
the E62 String values, which are the object of a Pxxx_has_string_value
property/predicate, as a subclass of rdf:value.
Or ... maybe we might choose another RDF(S) property. I forget the details of
our previous discussions, but there is rdfs:Literal and rdfs:langString, either
of which we could use. Ideally, we should in general choose RDF
implementations which conform nicely to our abstract distinction between E60
Number, E61 Time Primitive and E62 String.
I'm keen that we resolve the simple case of string values, because I think that
will solve 90+% of our users' actual needs. However, I'm equally keen that we
don't do it in a way which makes it harder to deal with bitmaps, graphics, and
indeed more complex values such as measurements (e.g. 3' 6") in RDF.
Thanks,
Richard
On 14/09/2018 18:23, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear All,
I propose a new property of Symbolic Object : "has symbolic content : String" ,
in RDFS subproperty of rdfs:value.
The "level of symbolic specificity" by which the String is interpreted should
conform to the type of the Symbolic Object.
Best,
Martin
On 9/14/2018 7:54 PM, Richard Light wrote:
On 13/09/2018 20:57, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear Richard,
What we need, to my opinion, is a property of Symbolic Object we may call it
"has symbolic content" or "has symbolic content inline" or anything better,
which defines that the symbolic content is identical to the Literal, abstracted
to the "level of symbolic specificity" that the Literal implies and that
conforms to the identity condition of the Symbolic Object, i.e., characters of
a certain script, or whatever. That would make the meaning of the "value"
unambiguous.
Again, I'm in complete agreement with this line of thought. One decision we
should make is whether this property forms part of the generic CRM framework,
or if it is to be an implementation-specific property which only appears in our
RDF implementation of the CRM. My instinct is for it to go into the CRM
proper: the treatment of Symbolic Object and its subclasses would I think be
made clearer by the addition of this property.
For CRM proper!
OK: perhaps we should start a new issue to address this?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email:
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
Richard Light
