[Crm-sig] RDFS, XML and more

Dear all, The "Resources" page of the CIDOC-CRM website ( http://www.cidoc-crm.org/versions-of-the-cidoc-crm) has been recently updated to include: - An *RDFS implementation* (*not yet approved by SIG*) of the last official version of CIDOC-CRM (7.1.1). The link points to a gitlab web page which

Re: [Crm-sig] RDFS, XML and more

Dear all, Thank you for the interesting discussion. A notice that might be important: In 'OWL Full', which was designed to allow flexibility and preserve compatibility with RDFS: *"object properties and datatype properties are not disjoint"* and *"datatype properties are effectively a subclass

Re: [Crm-sig] RDFS, XML and more

: > Thanks to all involved for this contribution. This is indeed an important > step towards adoption. > > I was wondering: is a SHACL profile and a JSON-LD context being considered? > > Op wo 1 sep. 2021 om 10:19 schreef Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig < > crm-sig@ics.

Re: [Crm-sig] RDFS, XML and more

Dear Alexander, Yes. As far as I know, the plan is to review and update all models based on 7.1.1 (by the corresponding working groups). Then, we plan to also provide an RDFS implementation for these models (whose generation has been automated to a great extent; we just need to check if specific

Re: [Crm-sig] RDFS, XML and more

ppellations (but again here SPARQL offers constructs that can be used to distinguish between the different types of appellations). Thanks again! Best regards, Pavlos > > Thanks for your hard work on this! > > Rob > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 8:44 AM Miel V

[Crm-sig] URI Management [Issue 460]

Dear all, We (at FORTH) have started working on the URIs management issue, i.e. on how to provide resolvable URIs for the different versions of CIDOC-CRM and its compatible models. We would like to hear you opinion about the following: *(A) HAVING BOTH UNVERSIONED AND VERSIONED ONTOLOGY URIS *

[Crm-sig] New Issue: RDFS Implementation and related issues

Dear all, I think there is no open issue on this (please let me know if this is not true), so I suggest opening a new issue in order to finalize the discussion on the RDFS implementation. Based on the discussion on the other email thread (title: "RDFS, XML and more"), I created the below google

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: RDFS Implementation and related issues

v1/linked-art.json > > D - Would like to see what benefits a SHACL shape file would bring. > (abstain) > > E - YES > F - YES > > And the URI construction is a separate issue? > > Rob > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 8:46 AM Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig < &g

Re: [Crm-sig] URI Management [Issue 460]

be bad practice, no? > One would expect that the whole RDF/OWL representation would be used for > reasoning. I think class URIs are only used as identifiers. This also > avoids the problem of ensuring correct older versions for deprecated > classes."* > Thanasi, could you please elaborat

Re: [Crm-sig] URI Management [Issue 460]

/fr/page/scolomfr-voc-045-num-001 >(marked with owl:deprecated + dct:isReplacedBy) > > > Cheers > Thomas > > > Le lun. 27 sept. 2021 à 16:10, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig < > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> a écrit : > >> Dear Robert, >> >> Thank you for

Re: [Crm-sig] URI Management [Issue 460]

; classes."* >>> Thanasi, could you please elaborate more on this? It's not clear to us >>> why/how reasoning considering a particular ontology version is affected >>> when versioned URIs are used for the classes and properties. >> >> >> As above,

Re: [Crm-sig] URI Management [Issue 460]

d >> when versioned URIs are used for the classes and properties. > > > As above, but Thansis is 100% correct - URIs are used as identifiers. We > wouldn't change the numbers in the ontology (E22, P2 etc) ... in RDF the > URI has the same function. > > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021

Re: [Crm-sig] URI Management [Issue 460]

Dear Richard, Thank you for the feedback and comments. Answers inline below: On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:13 PM Richard Light via Crm-sig < crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > On 27/09/2021 11:34, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote: > > Dear all, > > We (at FORTH) have starte

Re: [Crm-sig] Official NameSpaces of CRM Extensions?

Dear George, all, I agree that it is better to have namespaces under cidoc-crm.org for the official extensions, e.g.: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/crmsci/ (or any other similar uri that starts with http://www.cidoc-crm.org/) Also, these URIs, as well as the URIs of their classes and

[Crm-sig] URIs management (Issue 460)

Dear all, We are happy to announce that we have implemented the decisions of the last SIG meeting related to the management of URIs. Some more details: *(A) BASE URI (NAMESPACE) FOR

[Crm-sig] RDFS implementation (Issue 555)

Dear all, We are happy to announce that the RDFS implementation of CIDOC-CRM 7.1.1 has been finalized (based on the discussions and decisions of the last SIG meeting) and is now available through

Re: [Crm-sig] Fwd: Re: sealit ontology

d. If you have > received it in error, please > > delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not > use, copy or disclose the > > information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent > to Historic England may > > become public

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Common Policy / Method for Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

Dear George, all, The new version of PC classes file (for CRMbase version 7.1.1) has been already produced (as discussed in the last meeting) and will be soon available through the crm website (see issue 567 ). Thinking of it again:

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Common Policy / Method for Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

very poorly documented in the scope note of their >respective property. It is also important to mention that >"PC0_Typed_CRM_Property", "P01_has_domain", and "P02_has_range" don't have >a scope note at all. > > I agree. Descriptions are needed w

Re: [Crm-sig] Urgent: status of CRMinf, CRMsci, CRMtex, CRMdig, CRMba, CRMsoc

Dear Christian-Emil, all, Both CRMtex stable version 2.0 and CRMsci stable version 2.0 : i) are compatible with CRM official/stable version *7.1.2* ii) have an RDFS implementation iii) have a stable/resolvable

[Crm-sig] Issue 588 HW (Implementation of .1 properties)

Dear all, Our (last and tiny) homework for Issue 588 can be found in the following document:

[Crm-sig] Issue 638 (Implementing .2 properties / CRMarchaeo case)

Dear all, Please find a bit of homework for Issue 638 in the following document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p57ONamTuNY5eoCqdRJ9s_TO5wFg9KgnTPo5cov3Mnc/edit?usp=sharing Please, feel free to comment. Best regards, Pavlos -- Pavlos Fafalios Postdoctoral researcher Centre for Cultural

[Crm-sig] Issue 645 (Negating beliefs)

Dear all, Here is our homework for Issue 645: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cUJraOCppYjLkgZI8ExzzfMYubSfDIuyyTShvQUlH7Y/edit?usp=sharing It is more a brainstorming/discussion by Martin and me on the relevant aspects. Your feedback/comments are more than welcome! Best regards, Pavlos --

[Crm-sig] ISSUE 599 - Editorial Statuses of the CRMbase & family models

Dear all, Please find FORTH's homework for issue 599 in the below link (as will as in the issues' folder): https://docs.google.com/document/d/15GxRG1f0-T4P-l8wNE9fEyPB3LFZ02sbjzfogG1vG5k/edit?usp=sharing

[Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

Dear all, Please find my homework for issue 588 in the below link (as well as in the issues' folder):

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

e have a reification concept (E13 Attribute Assignment), I am not > sure if we need even more of these. > > I'm looking forward to the discussion! > > Best, > > Mark Fichtner > > Germanisches Nationalmuseum > > Am Mo., 12. Sept. 2022 um 14:22 Uhr schrieb Pavlos Fafalio

[Crm-sig] Comparing measurements / dimensions

Dear all, First, apologies if my question has already been discussed in a previous SIG meeting/issue. I was wondering if CIDOC CRM currently allows representing a measurement (instance of E16 Measurement), not by providing a value and unit (through an instance of E54 Dimension), but by comparing

Re: [Crm-sig] Comparing measurements / dimensions

To add: Thinking of it again, the Measurement and Dimension classes cannot be used for cases as the example I provided in my previous email (since 'E54 Dimension' comprises quantifiable properties that can be measured by some calibrated means and can be approximated by values). Nevertheless, there

[Crm-sig] Issues 549 HW (CRMtex)

Dear all, Please find the homework by Achille, Francesca, Martin and me for Issue 549 in the below link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PsFdOasYwjFBP28Er1olsShw1zfULwA8?usp=share_link Best regards, Pavlos

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

e Assignment), I am not >> sure if we need even more of these. >> >> I'm looking forward to the discussion! >> >> Best, >> >> Mark Fichtner >> >> Germanisches Nationalmuseum >> >> Am Mo., 12. Sept. 2022 um 14:22 Uhr schrieb Pavlos Fafalios v

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

Dear George, To my understanding (without having been involved in the relevant discussions about having the E33_E41 class in the RDFS but not in CRM), and according to the discussion in issue 363 , classes that use to

Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33

> very convincing when those rules are applied so inconsistently. > > Rob > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:18 AM Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig < > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > >> Dear George, >> >> To my understanding (without having been involved

Re: [Crm-sig] URIs of Classes that change Label (and how to relate them)

Hi George, According to my understanding and https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Deprecation (see example about 'Car'), an option would be to include the old class URI in the RDFS annotated as deprecated (e.g. using owl:deprecated of OWL 2), and then use owl:equivalentClass for linking the two class

[Crm-sig] E-vote for CRMtex 2.0

Dear all, We (Achille, Francesca, Martin, Pavlos, Eleni) are preparing the new stable version of CRMtex, following the discussion and decisions during the last SIG meeting in Belval (see Issue 549 ). For those

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE Implementing .2 Properties in RDF

uld ask to either create a new issue for the implementation of .2 > properties or include the discussion in the existing issue 588 as the > strategy should be the same for .1 and .2 . > > Whatever you think appropriate. > > > > Kind regards, > > Gerald > > &

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE Implementing .2 Properties in RDF

we presently > have. > > Best, > > George > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 1:55 PM Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig < > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > >> Dear Gerald, all, >> >> I think we can follow the same reification approach as we do for the .1 >> prop

[Crm-sig] Homework for Issue 533

Dear all, Our homework for Issue 533 can be found in the following shared folder: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11RV8bL6tM8KTuYvlxIraK45XK2X3zcMt?usp=share_link (issue folder for the

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

er communities of RDF > experts that apply to these types of situations that should be analyzed > before further specifying a notion of PC that doesn't seem totally > justified, or raising ontological analisis issues, instead of using simple > RDF reification? > > Best > >

[Crm-sig] CRMtex v2.0 (stable) is now online!

Dear all, The new (and stable) version of CRMtex is now available online, together with an RDFS implementation of the model: https://cidoc-crm.org/crmtex/fm_releases The (resolvable) namespace is: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/extensions/crmtex/ (it currently resolves only to rdf, but we plan to

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

Proposition Set is > regarded as Information Object, but this is not what we actually mean, we > mean the "meaning" of that Information Object, i.e., its truth or not. As > such, CRMinf is inconsistent. This is, I think, Issue 614. > > Best, > > Martin > > On 5/6/2023 12:43 AM

Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Statements about Statements.

Dear Martin, I'm also interested in participating in this group. Best regards, Pavlos On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 10:55 PM Dominic Oldman via Crm-sig < crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > I would like to be involved. > > Thanks, > > Dominic > > > > On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 19:34, Martin

Re: [Crm-sig] PC0_Typed_CRM_Property in CRMpc

Dear George, An instance of a property class represents a statement / formal proposition. Could we thus say that it is also an E73 Information Object? Would multiple instantiation provide a solution to the problem you describe? E.g.: :painting_sistine_chapel crm:P14_carried_out_by