Dear all,
It is consistent to say “indeed” both to what Martin wrote and what George
wrote below. If we see CRM as an ontology or a (logical) theory, then a
realization or serialization, if one prefer that term, in RDF is on the
implementation level (or more formally it is a valid model for
Dear all,
While I agree that it is the case that RDF is only one potential serialization
of CRM, it is nevertheless a fact on the ground it is the most popular at the
moment and a standard into which people invest real time and real money. It is,
typically, where CRM becomes flesh. Since CRM
Indeed!
Christian-Emil
From: Crm-sig on behalf of Martin Doerr
Sent: 28 February 2018 11:38
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90
Dear All,
I'd like to remind you that RDF-OWL is only a historical phenomenon in the
history
Dear All,
I'd like to remind you that RDF-OWL is only a historical phenomenon in
the history of knowledge representation.
The CRM needs to define semantics that cover E-R, TELOS, KL-One, KIF,
OIL, DAML-OIL, DL, RDFS, XML, Jason, and whatever will come up.
Therefore we define it in FOL.
The
Dear Philip,
Let me clarify here a fundamental principle of the CRM, which is not
negotiable:
Labels are mnemonics, and not semantics. There is no way by selecting a
term to overcome the ambiguity of natural
language. A CRM property is therefore defined semantically by the scope
note and
I have used rdf:value for this purpose.
https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value
The CRM's origin was outside of the RDF space, and it is still considered
to be something more abstract than any concrete expression in RDFS or OWL.
This is why, I think, there remains a puzzling gap between RDF
