I also support there not being reuse of numbers. There is no end of numbers to choose from.
Best, George ------------------------------------------------------ Dr. George Bruseker Coordinator Centre for Cultural Informatics Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) Science and Technology Park of Crete Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece Tel.: +30 2810 391619 Fax: +30 2810 391638 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl > On Jun 14, 2019, at 9:45 AM, Robert Sanderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I also agree with Vincent and Richard. Given the very slow rate of change > between “official” versions, and the prominence of the intermediate versions, > I agree that the condition should be “in a public document” not “in an > official version”. > > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/get-last-official-release > <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/get-last-official-release> lists 5.0.4, dated 2011, > as the last official release. > The “Current Version” link in the website sidebar lists version 6.2.3. > And the top most link in the home page under What’s New, refers to the upload > of 6.2.6. > And http://www.cidoc-crm.org/versions-of-the-cidoc-crm > <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/versions-of-the-cidoc-crm> lists 6.2.1 as the most > recent published version, and the most recent published RDFS file. > > So I believe that it is entirely reasonable for people to be confused as to > which identifiers are stable and which are not, and thus we should treat the > assignment of a number to a class or property as final. While in draft, it > can be xxx as per our typical practice. > > Rob > > From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Richard Light > <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 5:54 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Reuse identifiers of obsolete entities never published > > Vincent, > > I strongly support your view that we should not re-use identifiers. The only > argument I could give for this practice is the desire for a nice neat > sequence of identifiers: and we have already scuppered that aspiration by > deprecating previously-published classes and properties (thereby causing gaps > to appear). So, please, don't do it! > > Thanks, > > Richard > > On 13/06/2019 16:29, Vincent Alamercery wrote: > Dear all, > during the SIG meeting in Paris, we added the new property "P177 assigned > property type" (see > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.6_Definition_esIP.pdf > > <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.6_Definition_esIP.pdf>). > > This property reuses the already given identifier of the property "P177 ends > within" which has been deprecated without ever belonging to a published > version (see http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/p177-ends-within/version-6.2.2 > <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/p177-ends-within/version-6.2.2> and > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20-%20CRM_v6.2.6_%20Amendments.pdf > > <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20-%20CRM_v6.2.6_%20Amendments.pdf>) > > We had a little discussion on whether or not to reuse this identifier already > given. Maybe I'm picky but I'm not really comfortable with this practice. I > suggest never to reuse an identifier for the following non-exhaustive reasons: > > Even it's highly not recommended to use a draft version of CIDOC CRM, an > entity exists from the moment it appears on a public document. It could then > be potentially used by anyone. In a given namespace, an identifier must have > to be unique. > For documentation reason, it's easier to have unique identifiers too to avoid > speaking of "the old P177" or "the new P177". For instance, in the issue > #345, how to know of which P177 property we are talking about? Think "the new > P177" could be deprecated too one day...: > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-345-properties-having-domain-or-range-deprecated-classes > > <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-345-properties-having-domain-or-range-deprecated-classes> > Numbers are infinite, we don't need to save them. ;-) > Best regards, > > Vincent. > > -- > Vincent Alamercery > Pôle histoire numérique > @phn_larhra > > LARHRA - UMR 5190 > École normale supérieure de Lyon > 15 parvis René Descartes > BP 7000 > 69342 Lyon cedex 07 > France > > Tel : +33 (0)4 37 37 60 73 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/membre/54 > <http://larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/membre/54> > http://symogih.org/ <http://symogih.org/> > http://dataforhistory.org/ <http://dataforhistory.org/> > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > <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
