Phil, This is alarming. I have always assumed that a superseded class or property would simply be flagged as "deprecated" and a new one minted to replace it. There is absolutely no need to re-use numbers, and I am hoping someone will come forward to say that this was a mistake, and not a change which accords with CRM-SIG policy. Otherwise, as you say, we can have no confidence in the CRM as a persistent RDF framework, whether or not the class and property identifiers include a textual component. Is this an isolated case, or does anyone know of other cases where domain and range (and indeed meaning) of a class or property has been changed after its initial publication?
(The textual component is, in any case, only meant to be guidance and is explicitly stated not to be unique: 'is identified by' below is a good example of this.) Best wishes, Richard On 18/01/2018 10:29, Carlisle, Philip wrote: > > Hi all, > > I agree that using the number alone as the identifier would be the way > forward particularly with regards to the changing of the name of a > class or property. > > > > However this would only work if the domain/range and scope of the > class or property remain the same. > > > > There is at least one instance of a property in the CRM where the > number has been retained but the context of the property has > completely changed. > > > > The property in question is P148. > > > > In the CRM version 4.2.2 we had: > > > > *P148 is identified by (identifies)* > > > > Domain: E28 Conceptual Object > > Range: E75 Conceptual Object Appellation > > Subproperty: E1 CRM Entity. P1 is identified by (identifies): > E41 Appellation > > Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n) > > > > Scope note: This property identifies a name used > specifically to identify an E28 Conceptual Object. > > > > This property is a specialisation of /P1 is identified by > (identifies)/ is identified by. > > > > Examples: > > § The publication „Germanisches Nationalmuseum (GNM), Fuehrer durch > die Sammlungen” (broschiert), Prestl 1995 (E73) /is identified by/ > ISBN 3-7913-1418-1 (E75) > > > > > > According to the appendix of CRM 5.1.2 as amendments to CRM 4.2.5 the > property P148 changed to > > > > */P148 has been changed/**//* > > * * > > BEFORE > > * * > > *P148 is identified by (identifies)* > > > > Domain: E28 Conceptual Object > > Range: E75 Conceptual Object Appellation > > Subproperty: E1 CRM Entity. P1 is identified by (identifies): > E41 Appellation > > Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n) > > > > Scope note: This property identifies a name used > specifically to identify an E28 Conceptual Object. > > > > This property is a specialisation of /P1 is identified by > (identifies)/ is identified by. > > > > Examples: > > § The publication „Germanisches Nationalmuseum (GNM), Fuehrer durch > die Sammlungen” (broschiert), Prestl 1995 (E73) /is identified by/ > ISBN 3-7913-1418-1 (E75) > > AFTER > > * * > > *P148 has component (is component of)* > > Domain: E89 Propositional Object > > Range: E89 Propositional Object > > Superproperty of: > > Subproperty of: > > > > Quantification: (0:n,0:n) > > > > Scope note: This property associates an instance of E89 > Propositional Object with a structural part of it that is by itself an > instance of E89 Propositional Object. > > > > Examples: The Italian text of Dante’s textual work > entitled “Divina Commedia” (E33) /P148 has component /The Italian text > of Dante’s textual work entitled “Inferno” (E33) > > > > > > In the document as amendments to CRM 5.0.3 we have, unbelievably, the > following: > > > > *P149 is identified by (identifies)*** > > It is decided to create a subproperty of P1 to connect E28 with E75 as > follows > > > > P149 is identified by: E75 > > > > Domain: E28 <#_E28_Conceptual_Object> > Conceptual Object > > Range: E75 <#_E75_Conceptual_Object> Conceptual > Object Appellation > > Subproperty of: E1 <#_E1_CRM_Entity> CRM Entity. P1 > <#_P1_is_identified> is identified by (identifies): E41 > <#_E41_Appellation> Appellation > > Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n) > > > > Scope note: This property identifies an instance of E28 > Conceptual Object using an instance of E75 Conceptual Object Appellation. > > > > Examples: The German edition of the CIDOC CRM (E73) /is > identified/ /by/ ISBN 978-3-00-030907-6 (E75) > > > > > > In this instance if the URI http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P148 > had been in use in any implementation based on CRM 4.2.2 the change in > label, domain and range would not have been picked up by an automatic > update. > > > > Furthermore at no point would it have been obvious that all instances > of http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P148, in the original meaning, > should be replaced with http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P149 > > > > This may have been an oversight on the part of the CRM-SIG however I > would strongly suggest that in future if the SIG want to change a > property or class that they check with those system owners who’ve > actually been using the CRM in the real world to ensure that these > whims do not affect the smooth running of any current implementations. > > > > If the aim of the CRM is to facilitate data exchange it would imply > that each implementation should be able to rely on the properties and > classes not changing their fundamental essence. > > > > Re-use and re-assignment of numbers and labels is, to my mind, > exceptionally bad practice. > > > > Phil > > > > *Phil Carlisle* > > Knowledge Organization Specialist > > Listing Group, Historic England > > Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824 > > > > http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/ > > http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ > > > > Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues > are valued for their skillsand knowledge, and where communication, > customer focus and working in partnership are at the heart of > everything we do. > > > > > > > Historic England Logo <http://www.historicengland.org.uk/> > > We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic environment, > and protect it for the future. Historic England > <http://bit.ly/1OuxROd> is a public body, and we champion everyone’s > heritage, across England. > Follow us: Facebook > <https://www.facebook.com/HistoricEngland> |/ // /Twitter > <https://twitter.com/HistoricEngland> | Instagram > <https://www.instagram.com/historicengland/> Sign up to our > newsletter <http://bit.ly/1p49z1e> > > Help us create a list of the 100 places which tell England's > remarkable story and its impact on the world. A History of England in > 100 Places <https://historicengland.org.uk/100places> sponsored by > Ecclesiastical > <%20http://www.ecclesiastical.com/fororganisations/insurance/heritageinsurance/100-places/index.aspx>. > > > > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain > personal views which are not the views of Historic England unless > specifically stated. 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 publicly available. > > *From:*Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] *On Behalf Of > *Gordon Dunsire > *Sent:* 18 January 2018 09:22 > *To:* 'Robert Sanderson'; 'Richard Light'; 'Jim Salmons'; > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE Recording an E41 in RDF > > > > All > > > > It is for this reason that the IFLA declaration of URIs for the FRBRoo > extension to CRM drops the name, and uses only the notation: > > > > http://metadataregistry.org/schemaprop/list/schema_id/94.html > > > > Cheers > > > > Gordon > > > > *From:*Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] > <mailto:[mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr]> *On Behalf Of *Robert > Sanderson > *Sent:* 17 January 2018 16:52 > *To:* Richard Light <rich...@light.demon.co.uk > <mailto:rich...@light.demon.co.uk>>; Jim Salmons > <jim.salm...@factminers.org <mailto:jim.salm...@factminers.org>>; > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> > *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE Recording an E41 in RDF > > > > > > Here’s a quick addition … > > > > The RDF representation uses the names of the classes and predicates in > the URIs that identify them. This means ;l > > that when the names change, the URIs change and this invalidates all > of the previous uses. As the SIG considers only the number to be > important, there is a mismatch of expectations around persistence and > versioning. > > > > Examples: E78_Collection versus E78_Curated_Holding and the recent > thread about renaming translation_of. > > > > Rob > > > > > > *From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr > <mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Richard Light > <rich...@light.demon.co.uk <mailto:rich...@light.demon.co.uk>> > *Date: *Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 3:46 AM > *To: *Jim Salmons <jim.salm...@factminers.org > <mailto:jim.salm...@factminers.org>>, "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>" <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> > *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE Recording an E41 in RDF > > > > Jim, > > Thank you for the encouragement. I have put the document in its > current form at: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zCGZ4iBzekcEYo4Dy0hI8CrZ7dTkMD2rJaxavtEOET0/edit?usp=sharing > > and it is editable by anyone with the link. As you'll see, there is > little that is new in there (although there might already be things to > argue about!), but there is the outline of a more substantive > document. All suggestions and contributions gratefully received. > > Richard > > On 16/01/2018 23:42, Jim Salmons wrote: > > Richard and SIG members, > > > > On 16/01/2018, Richard Light wrote [rest of thread snipped for > brevity]: > > > > “I have started an "issues with RDF" document, but on > reflection it may be more constructive to make it into a first > attempt at the guidance I am asking for. I'll spend this > afternoon pulling together material which I can easily find (e.g. > the introductory comments in the RDF Schema document), and see > what questions that exercise answers.” > > > > The recent flurry of conversation relating to the interplay of > #cidocCRM and #RDF is most interesting and timely, both to me > personally and, I believe, to the larger SIG mission of > championing our model’s utility to those who are interested but > hesitant to explore and adopt it in practice. > > > > == On the "Big Picture" Community Level... == > > > > 1. Richard, I would be very interested to see your working > document mentioned above as soon as it is available and would love > to be involved in its draft evolution as I would qualify as a > highly-motivated non-expert reader with good writing/editing skills. > > > > 2. I know that this mailing list is very focused on the "tight" > conversations of core and significant modeling issues and their > resolution. Given that wrestling with "#cidocCRM in #RDF" is > itself a gnarly domain that will likely engender its own level of > detailed conversation, and given that the SIG is currently having > an in-person meeting on current issues and future directions, > might it be appropriate, via the energy and interest at the > current meeting, to form a Working Group on this topic and spawn > its own mailing list with a charter to explore this topic and come > back to the full SIG with draft documents (e.g. the > afore-mentioned "primer") and recommendations in response to its > charter? If such a working group were to be formed, I would very > much like to be involved. > > > > Putting on my "marketing hat" for a moment, I believe that the > better we address #cidocCRM in #RDF, especially in terms of > practical and example-based documentation and learning materials, > that this will be the most important initiative we can take at > this time to advance the adoption of the #cidocCRM in deployed and > new #LOD systems/collections. > > > > Happy-Healthy Vibes to All and a Happy New Year, > > -: Jim:- > > > > www.researchgate.net/profile/Jim_Salmons > <http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jim_Salmons> > > www.medium.com/@Jim_Salmons/ > <http://www.medium.com/@Jim_Salmons/> (my > #CognitiveComputing/#DigitalHumanities articles) > > > > P.S. As a postscript, I provide these comments with regard to my > own personal learning and research experience... > > > > == Optional on my Personal Interest in #cidocCRM & #RDF == > > > > At a personal level, some in the SIG know that I am a U.S.-based > independent (and untrained) #CitizenScientist working my > post-cancer #PayItForward Bonus Rounds to contribute my best > efforts at the intersection of #DigitalHumanities and > #CognitiveComputing. As a “software guy” I spent the bulk of my > career as a Smalltalk developer and was particularly active during > the initial wave of the software patterns movement. I was drawn to > the #cidocCRM through my desire to apply ideas for > metamodel-driven design of “self-descriptive executable model” > frameworks from my prior Smalltalk work. I want to apply these > ideas to my research that takes advantage of the emerging > technology of graph databases. As a “pure OOP” Smalltalker, I had > a “knee-jerk” reaction of disinterest in #RDF as its level of > detail in notation reminded me too much of what we “pure OOPers” > felt about the object-orientedness of C++ and Java. > > > > I have been using Neo4j’s property graph database for my initial > applied research but lately became disenchanted with it. As I > surveyed my technology-provider options, I decided that my piqued > interest in Linked Open Data warranted a reevaluation of #RDF and > the available triple store products as a means to pursue my work > in development of the MAGAZINE #GTS (ground-truth storage) format > based on a #cidocCRM/FRBRoo/PRESSoo ontological “stack.” > > > > I am now fully committed to redirecting my #cidocCRM-based > research platform around #RDF (along w/ #TEI) primarily for these > three reasons: > > > > * I found Ontotext's GraphDB to be an excellent company and > technology, both in its principal product and in its all-important > documentation, self-driven learning resources, and its helpful > tech support community. > > > > * Once I was "bitten" by GraphDB, I began an intensive effort > to come up to speed on #RDF through self-study and found the most > incredibly-written and super-helpful book, "Semantic Web for the > Working Ontologist: Effective Modeling in RDFS and OWL, 2nd > Edition" by Dean Allemang and James Hendler (book companion > website http://www.workingontologist.org). > > > > * My interest in software patterns led me to Pascal Hitzler > (http://www.pascal-hitzler.de/) and the ODPA, the Association for > Ontology Design & Patterns and their website at > http://ontologydesignpatterns.org with associated Google group > mailing list at this shortened URL https://goo.gl/x6MJjM. Through > my initial involvement in this community, I am excited to note > that I will be attending #us2ts, the 1st U.S. Semantic > Technologies Symposium in early March in Dayton, Ohio. Of course I > will be bringing my interest in ontology design patterns and the > #cidocCRM to this event which is geared toward developing a North > American cross-discipline semantic technologies research > community. More information on this event is here http://us2ts.org/. > > > > Finally, I am also pleased to note that as part of my > #PayItForward Bonus Rounds I served on the Program Committee of > #DATeCH2017 and my fellow cancer-survivor wife and I had two > papers accepted for a poster at this event, a PDF of which is > available here https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtML1v0eUlpEgoAJ_FH6CMU5luOUBA > <https://1drv.ms/b/s%21AtML1v0eUlpEgoAJ_FH6CMU5luOUBA>. > > > > To those who read this optional postscript... another > > > > Happy-Healthy Vibes, > > -: Jim :- > > > > > > . > > > > > > -- > *Richard Light* > -- *Richard Light*
