Dear all,

As a complement to the work going on in issue 382 on where to document and
where not to document provenance, I suggest a parallel avenue of
research/work related to the implementation of named graphs for data sets
using CIDOC CRM. As named graphs are now commonly used in semantic data
management, it seems apropos as a community to have a recommendation of
good practice similar to what we have done with the RDF implementation
document (outside of the spec, but related to real world use).

This issue is something that is especially of interest to organizations
involved in and intending to implement aggregations of CH datasets where
the issue of named graphs have to do, inter alia, with both questions of
provenance but also questions of maintenance and updating of the semantic
data graph.

To this end, together with Philippe Michon and the team at CHIN, we have
been putting together a set of questions, to try to pick out the actual
practice of named graph usage in the CIDOC CRM community as a basis from
which to create a empirically grounded best practice
recommendation/strategy.

Time permitting, we would like to share our current ideas/questions during
the SIG, and then share a survey with the community.

Otherwise, we can continue this conversation virtually.

Best,

George
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Reply via email to