On 15/01/2018 19:52, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Right. We have often discussed it, but I am not sure if we have
> written a guideline, and it is not in the right place, or if we have
> only exchanged e-mails about it.
> I put is as an issue, in case its new. The point is that we cannot
> make rdf label a subproperty of p1.
More generally, I would argue that there should be clear guidance on the
whole subject of "implementing an RDF instantiation of the CRM". I was
very pleased with the guidance for recording dates which we recently
worked on, and assumed that was just an outlier which had been missed up
to now. If we are seriously expecting implementors to produce RDF
solutions which embody the CRM, we must provide them with comprehensive
and specific guidance - maybe a range of implementation options. In my
understanding of it, the problem areas are mostly at the "sharp end"
where the actual data comes in.
Best wishes,
Richard
> best,
>
> martin
>
> On 1/15/2018 6:33 PM, Richard Light wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It's perhaps telling that I even have to ask this question at this
>> stage in the game.
>>
>> I'm not sure how to encode a person's name in RDF in a CRM-compliant
>> manner. It's an E41 Appellation, and is linked to the person by a
>> P1_is_identified_by property, I'm assuming. So far, so good.
>>
>> However, it looks as though I have the choice of not stating that it
>> is an E41, or of connecting the E41 to its string value via a
>> property which is nowhere defined in the CRM:
>>
>> freeukgen:b65432#born a crm:E21_Person;
>> crm:P1_is_identified_by "Light, Thomas Edward" .
>>
>> or:
>>
>> freeukgen:b65432#born a crm:E21_Person;
>> crm:P1_is_identified_by [
>> a crm:E41_Appellation;
>> {has-string-value} "Light, Thomas Edward" ] .
>>
>> The CRM definition gives strings as examples of E41, which implies
>> that the first form is acceptable. However, my instinct says that it
>> is wrong to finesse the fact that it is an E41 in this way. If the
>> E41 /is /to be expressed, as in my second form, I would welcome
>> advice as to what the value of "{has-string-value}" should be.
>>
>> Whichever approach is correct, I am struck by the absence of a primer
>> which says, in straightforward terms, "this is how you encode CRM
>> concepts in RDF". If it exists and I have simply missed it, please
>> point me in its direction and I will spread the word ...
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Richard
>> --
>> *Richard Light*
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
> | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
> |
> Center for Cultural Informatics |
> Information Systems Laboratory |
> Institute of Computer Science |
> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
> |
> N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
> GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
> |
> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
*Richard Light*
