Dear Pavlos,
to my knowledge up to now the ecrm is the official OWL-implementation of
the CIDOC CRM. Automation of the process seems to be a good idea, however
in the last years we could provide many feedback while we were implementing
cidoc crm (style/writing mistakes but also logical
Dear all,
I am speaking from OWL-point of view and agree with most of the other
writers.
Concerning the P1-issue:
- rdfs:label has rdfs:Literal as range
- P1 in OWL typically is an object property and not a datatype property. It
has E41 as a range and E41 is not in the E59 primitive value
Dear all,
thanks to Juliane Hamisch and Robert Nasarek I can announce a new version
of the Erlangen CRM (http://erlangen-crm.org/current-version, or on Github:
https://github.com/erlangen-crm/ecrm/blob/master/ecrm_211015.owl) based on
CIDOC CRM 7.1.1. We hope it will be a good base for a new
Dear all,
nice work, thanks! I think for RDF this is a valid representation, although
I am not very happy to add properties that are not in the cidoc crm
directly and that are not part of the language itself (like in this
case crm:P03_reifies). As a user/reader of the rdf it is simply hard to
Dear all,
while I must agree with Rob that the three classes he proposed for deletion
are not a particular best pratice in ontology building from a semantic
point of view, I don't feel good with the direction the CRM is going
currently. At our museum we are following the CRM because it is the
