Dear all, I agree that this is an ongoing issue that creates barriers to uptake because of confusion. It is an oft repeated question and deserves a clear answer. We need a solution based on community wide best practice. Suggestions?
Best, George On Thu., Jan. 16, 2020, 12:51 p.m. Francesco Beretta, < francesco.bere...@cnrs.fr> wrote: > Dear all, > > I have a question about CIDOC CRM URI management. > > > The last published version of CRMbase is 6.2.1. If I take the RDF > serialization, I find this base URI: > > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/ > > > If I sent this URI in the web: > > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E92_Spacetime_Volume > > I have an error message. > > > If I sent this URI in the web: > > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E5_Event > > I'm dereferenced on verson 5.0.4. > > > The machine cannot know which version of CRM is considered. > > > I have then the Erlangen URI: > > http://erlangen-crm.org/current/E92_Spacetime_Volume > > dereferencing on a document of the whole version. > > There are additional, earlier specific versions. > > > I have an issue in OntoME: which URI is to be used ? > > > We have a provisional, not dereferenced URI: > > > https://dataforhistory.org/external-ontology/cidoc-crm-base-6-2/E92_Spacetime_Volume > > It is there to avoid confusion but it's bad practice. > > > I'm asking myself what to do, and people adopting the CRM are asking me > these kind of questions, beeing not happy with this situation. > > > I think there was already a discussion about this point in the SIG. > > Shouldn't we find, and implement, a solution that meets current > requirements? > > The same issue is raised of course about the extensions familiy. > > > Best > > Francesco > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
