Dear George,

 

The rdfs defines 1 such class using just 1 name the 
‘E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation’.

The second name reference you are referring to ‘E41_E33_Linguistic_Appellation’ 
exists only in the XML comments of the rdfs file.

 

There has been a discussion and decision about the correct order. 

Please see issue 
https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-555-rdfs-implementation-and-related-issues and 
search for post starting with In the 51st CIDOC CRM & 44th FRBRoo SIG meeting

Decision: keeping numbers of the numeric identifier in order.  

 

Thus the rdfs is valid and consistent but the comment lines should also 
definitely be adapted to this decision. 

Thanks for spotting, 

 

I will correct this ASAP,

 

Kind regards,

Elias Tzortzakakis

 

 

From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> On Behalf Of George Bruseker via 
Crm-sig
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 5:02 PM
To: crm-sig <[email protected]>
Subject: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of 
E41 and E33

 

Dear all,

 

There are two references to the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33 that 
allows you to talk about the language of a name (which is a super common 
requirement... actually almost always necessary). I can't give you it's 
official name because I dont know because it isn't in the spec doc and it 
doesn't have ONE name in the RDFS. 

 

In one reference it is called: E41_E33_Linguistic_Appellation and then later it 
is called E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation. Try find f in the rdfs doc and you 
will what I mean.

 

https://cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/7.1.1/CIDOC_CRM_v7.1.1.rdfs

 

 

Actually I don't care what it is called, but it would be nice if it was really, 
really clear. 

 

I think this speaks against the practice of hiding classes we don't like and 
call implementation classes in the RDFS and should make them full classes in 
the standard so that they are fully vetted and controlled. It is a fundamental 
class. It should be in the standard in the first place.

 

And definitely it should not have two different name in the RDFS. Can we 
confirm that it is supposed to be E33_E41 and not E41_E33? 

 

Cheers,

 

George


 

-- 

George Bruseker, PhD

Chief Executive Officer

Takin.solutions Ltd.

https://www.takin.solutions/

_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Reply via email to