I agree with this. Shouldn't it be part of the RDF implementation document?
Thanasis
On 20/07/2021 15:37, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:
Wholehearted agreement. Even if they're expressed in different ways by
different representations of the conceptual model, if we can standardize
the URI then an RDFS description and an OWL description of *the same
URIs* can be used by different communities without breaking
interoperability. If we get RDF*, or other declarative technological
models for describing graph structures, then they too could describe the
use of the URIs in their contexts.
Rob
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 6:03 AM George Bruseker via Crm-sig
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear all,
Many people try to use the CIDOC CRM in order to build sustainable,
reusable data sources and connect into a wider linked open data web.
When they do so, they would like to easily be able to find / use the
URIs for the classes and properties that the standard declares.
The official documentation does not include this information in a
handy way.
Proposal for discussion: include the URIs for the classes and
properties as clickable links that resolve to the online space where
they are maintained in the word/pdf specification.
Discuss!
Best,
George
_______________________________________________
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>
--
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
