Dear Richard,
I'll shorten now:
On 9/14/2018 7:54 PM, Richard Light wrote:
My suggestion is that we define the "has symbolic content" property,
and then put our energy into agreeing one or more subproperties of
rdf:value which meet the known recording requirements for cultural
heritage inf
On 13/09/2018 20:57, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear Richard,
>>
>>> What we need, to my opinion, is a property of Symbolic Object we may
>>> call it "has symbolic content" or "has symbolic content inline" or
>>> anything better, which defines that the symbolic content *is
>>> identical to* the Literal
Dear Richard,
On 12/09/2018 14:55, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear Richard,
I basically agree with your comments. Specifically however, I indeed
wanted to say that the official definition of rdfs:label makes it
exactly a subproperty of P1 (or shortcut of it) in any correct use of
RDFS. If we want
On 12/09/2018 14:55, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear Richard,
>
> I basically agree with your comments. Specifically however, I indeed
> wanted to say that the official definition of rdfs:label makes it
> exactly a subproperty of P1 (or shortcut of it) in any correct use of
> RDFS. If we want to mix RD
Dear Richard,
I basically agree with your comments. Specifically however, I indeed
wanted to say that the official definition of rdfs:label makes it
exactly a subproperty of P1 (or shortcut of it) in any correct use of
RDFS. If we want to mix RDFS models, we should have an opinion about
their
On 11/09/2018 20:02, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Firstly, apologies, the RDF was wrong, it was intended to be P1 is
> superproperty of rdfs:label.
I'm not sure that this is something we need to state at all, and I worry
that - if it is included in our RDFS Schema - it may bring unwanted
si
Dear All,
Firstly, apologies, the RDF was wrong, it was intended to be P1 is
superproperty of rdfs:label.
Semantically, the range of rdfs:label, when used, is ontologically an
Appellation in the sense of the CRM.
I agree with George, that all RDF nodes should have a human readable
label. T
Hi,
Apologies for being so quiet on this front.
I'm puzzled by Martin's final declaration test: it says the intention is
to see if P1 can be a /superproperty /of rdfs:label, yet the declaration
(and consequent SPARQL query) asserts/tests that it is a /subproperty
/of rdfs:label:
> The next quest
ied_by: [
>>
>> “uri-as-identifier”
>>
>> ]
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> Because P1 can only ever have a resource as its object.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or (if you don’t care for the singleton array), the simplest possible fo
> “P1_is_identified_by”: “uri-as-identifier”
>
> }
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> From: Crm-sig <mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Detlev Balzer
> mailto:d...@balilabs.de>>
> Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:11 PM
>
{
>
> “P1_is_identified_by”: “uri-as-identifier”
>
> }
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> *From: *Crm-sig on behalf of Detlev Balzer
>
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:11 PM
> *To: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr"
> *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: Solution
behalf of Detlev Balzer
Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 12:11 PM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr"
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: Solution for Dualism of E41 Appellation and
rdfs:label
Am 04.09.2018 um 19:19 schrieb Robert Sanderson:
In particular, it makes it difficult in several seriali
ions to distinguish
> between the string “http://example.museum.org/data/1” and the resource that
> has the URI http://example.museum.org/data/1 as its identifier.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Crm-sig on behalf of Martin Doerr
>
> *Date:
://example.museum.org/data/1” and the resource that has
the URI http://example.museum.org/data/1 as its identifier.
Rob
From: Crm-sig on behalf of Martin Doerr
Date: Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 7:41 AM
To: crm-sig
Subject: [Crm-sig] Issue: Solution for Dualism of E41 Appellation and rdfs:label
Dear
Dear All,
Obviously, there are two ways in RDF to express what the CRM regards as
an Appellation: Either using a URI, instance of E41, and then another
property specifying in whatever way the symbolic content (I am not
concerned with this here), *OR *using rdfs:label, which has exactly the
me
15 matches
Mail list logo
