Dear all, Before the last SIG, together with CHIN, we proposed an issue on discussing best practice in the application of named graphs by the CIDOC CRM community. In order to empirically ground this conversation and build a background understanding of the present state of the art, CHIN and myself co-developed a survey which we shared to the list in order to get actual practitioner feedback on the use of named graphs. The results of that survey as well as preliminary conclusions regarding its content are listed in the attached report. In the report you will find a link to the original survey and the raw data resulting if of interest.
So the groundwork and homework is done to have a fruitful conversation on this topic!We heartily look forward to discussing this issue at the upcoming SIG and will make sure to invite all respondents to the survey to attend the scheduled session. We look forward to the community based discussion on this question and building best practices together. Here is a link to the survey result report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vUBsp-AUrdE0_61CpsqBymQEzyzLvMzh/view?usp=sharing Sincerely, George P.S.: Sorry if this sends twice, the list bounced my email with a tiny attachment, so I had to find a workaround. Hope this does the trick! On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 2:07 PM George Bruseker <george.bruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > Given the packed agenda of the CRM SIG, we were not able to talk about > named graphs during the course of this SIG. > > I would hope to move the conversation forward significantly between now > and the next SIG in parallel with the work on issue 382 > <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-382-where-to-stop-documenting-the-provenance> > on > provenance. > > To this end, together with CHIN, I have compiled a survey on named graph > use, that I would invite people/organizations in the community who are > interested in the question to answer. CHIN is actively researching this > issue and will compile the data and share it back to respondents and the > community in support of a general CIDOC CRM SIG recommendation on the use > of named graphs (similar to the RDF recommendation document work). > > The survey can be retrieved here: > > > https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeIPyE6uZ5r32G4Ejznk5E6X4rkj45fuEzj_Z9QzL2R_F07zA/viewform > > Sincerely, > > George Bruseker > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 4:21 PM George Bruseker <george.bruse...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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
