Thank Elias, You are definitely right that it is ok in the actual doc but mis referenced in the xml commentary. My point is not that the RDFS is wrong and it is great that it is produced and solid. I am more interested in how NOT having legitimate classes in the standard but compromising and just putting them in RDFS means that a) we create all sorts of arcana around what should be an open standard and b) because the class is not documented in the specification document we don't actually have a rule to know what is should be called.
So it's more a process and principles level issue. Cheers, George On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 5:29 PM Elias Tzortzakakis <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ > -- 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
