I think that offering examples in the form of 3M mappings would also be
helpful.
Thanasis
On 29/01/18 02:39, George Bruseker wrote:
Dear all,
I think that an official RDF implementation recommendation guide as has
been started would be a very useful document. I think the google doc
format is a good place for formulating. We should aim to consider the
resulting doc at the next SIG, hopefully with as much input from across
the community as possible before hand. Having such a document should be
a big help in eliminating unnecessary variance in implementation. A nice
addition to the document would be to have example accompanying rdf.
Best,
George
On Jan 23, 2018, at 8:29 PM, Richard Light <rich...@light.demon.co.uk
<mailto:rich...@light.demon.co.uk>> wrote:
On 23/01/2018 16:39, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear All,
Thank you very much for your engagement in these issues!
Let me remark, for all those that find our practices alarming, that
nobody of us is paid for the maintenance of the CRM.
It is exclusively an engagement of volunteers and engagement of
organizations for a common good.
What is really alarming for me is the lack of users offering active
work beyond criticism.
I think the recent discussions about RDF and the CRM go well beyond
just offering criticism. You'll find the document which I started on
Google Docs:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zCGZ4iBzekcEYo4Dy0hI8CrZ7dTkMD2rJaxavtEOET0/edit
which is an attempt at a self-contained 'how to' guide for CRM RDF
implementers, and which reflects the recent discussions on this topic.
I'm happy to develop this document further, and would welcome input
from others on this list. Conversely, if this document doesn't meet a
real need, I would be equally happy to be told why this is the case.
Best wishes,
Richard
We are now in the 22th year of development. If you want to have a CRM
in which you can find some practices alarming in the future, better
engage now and support us by coming to the meetings, learn
understanding the methods and do editing work, tools development,
didactic material etc;-).
Besides inviting people to our meetings and learning in the
discussions, we'll be very glad to offer intensive training in our
methods
and principles to anybody interested. Without the one or the other,
some e-mail discussions may repeat old arguments in a fragmented way,
never convincing, because the overall logic is not exposed. The art
is balancing all practical requirements and a crystal-clear separation
between the intellectual and technological levels.
Interested people may be domain professionals with a long-term data
modeling and standards mission, consultants, but in particular also
post-graduate students that can combine their subjects with
methodological research and become trainers themselves.
So I hope some of you are alarmed enough to join us actively:-D!
Best,
martin
On 1/18/2018 2:29 PM, Richard Light wrote:
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
--
*Richard Light*
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto: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