Dear all, It is consistent to say “indeed” both to what Martin wrote and what George wrote below. If we see CRM as an ontology or a (logical) theory, then a realization or serialization, if one prefer that term, in RDF is on the implementation level (or more formally it is a valid model for the theory). Unfortunately, after RDF/OWL was introduced 19 years ago there is a widespread tendency to blur the distinction between the two levels and also mix concepts and the particulars (e.g consider living persons to be concepts as seems to be done in AAT).
As George and Richard point out, it is extremely important to define good and robust guidelines for how to make a valid implementation (that is, compatible with the abstract ontology). As Martin points out the implementation/representation of truly infinite categories , say numbers can only be partial. However, the implementation must be consistent with the ontology. I am absolutely in favour of good, robust implementation guides. Best, Christian-Emil ________________________________ From: George Bruseker <bruse...@ics.forth.gr> Sent: 28 February 2018 15:25 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90 Dear all, While I agree that it is the case that RDF is only one potential serialization of CRM, it is nevertheless a fact on the ground it is the most popular at the moment and a standard into which people invest real time and real money. It is, typically, where CRM becomes flesh. Since CRM aims on a practical level to support integration, it is clear that we need clear rules for the implementation of CRM into RDF. Otherwise, though we all use the same model, we still don’t make compatible data. In a recent issue, Richard Light has highlighted this need for an explicit and robust description of RDF implementation guidelines and began reviewing the various pieces of documentation that already exist and trying to consolidate them. This is extremely valuable work and is something that hopefully the whole community can contribute to creating a consensus around. Seen from a practitioner/implementer perspective Phil’s question is spot on: where do I put this data that CRM should be able to cover given its scope? While the issue can’t be resolved by moving the domain/range of that particular class, the practical issue does remain and is of interest to the CRM community as a real, on the ground data management need. Semantically, I think that the 'has content' solution discussed before can potentially provide a good conceptual model for the actual data of a symbolic/information object. In general, the particular issue of rdf:value as a potential equivalent of p3 has note in the RDF serialization is, I think, worth investigating relative to the official document for RDF implementation. The question raises fruitful thought and hopefully fruitful theoretic and practical answers. Cheers, George On Feb 28, 2018, at 3:24 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore <c.e.s....@iln.uio.no<mailto:c.e.s....@iln.uio.no>> wrote: Indeed! Christian-Emil ________________________________ From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> Sent: 28 February 2018 11:38 To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Domain and range of P90 Dear All, I'd like to remind you that RDF-OWL is only a historical phenomenon in the history of knowledge representation. The CRM needs to define semantics that cover E-R, TELOS, KL-One, KIF, OIL, DAML-OIL, DL, RDFS, XML, Jason, and whatever will come up. Therefore we define it in FOL. The puzzling gap to primitive values has on one side to do with hardware, which cannot cover infinite mathematical spaces. Consequently, each machine and encoding convention uses a different subset. The other difference is deeper: On the machine, you can only use identifiers to talk about things. Digital objects themselves can be in the machine, but not necessarily are, and all others cannot. This causes a semantic gap which is common to all database schemata, and needs to be resolved by a series of practical conventions separately for each datamodel. It can only be resolved by having an ontology, which in the first place makes the distinction, so that it becomes clear, what each database schema describes about the world and what description is. I hope this makes things theoretically clearer: The puzzle is what is information itself. Best, Martin On 2/28/2018 10:39 AM, Conal Tuohy wrote: I have used rdf:value for this purpose. https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_value The CRM's origin was outside of the RDF space, and it is still considered to be something more abstract than any concrete expression in RDFS or OWL. This is why, I think, there remains a puzzling gap between RDF resources which are instances of CRM classes and their literal values which must be expressed using primitive RDF data types. The point of rdf:value, as I understand it, is to fill in gaps like these. On 22 February 2018 at 02:04, Carlisle, Philip <philip.carli...@historicengland.org.uk<mailto:philip.carli...@historicengland.org.uk>> wrote: Dear all, Naïve question. Is there any reason why P90 has value could not/should not change its domain and range from: Domain: Range E54 Dimension E60 Number to E1 CRM Entity E59 Primitive Value I look forward to you answers Phil Phil Carlisle Knowledge Organization Specialist Listing Group, Historic England Direct Dial: +44 (0)1793 414824<tel:+44%201793%20414824> http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/ http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ Listing Information Services fosters an environment where colleagues are valued for their skills and knowledge, and where communication, customer focus and working in partnership are at the heart of everything we do. <imagef3e45e.JPG><http://www.historicengland.org.uk/> We help people understand, enjoy and value the historic environment, and protect it for the future. Historic England<https://www.historicengland.org.uk/> 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://webmail.historicenglandservices.org.uk/k/Historic-England/newsletter_sign_up> 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 byEcclesiastical<http://www.ecclesiastical.com/fororganisations/insurance/heritageinsurance/100-places/index.aspx>. We have moved! Our new London office is at 4th Floor, Cannon Bridge House, 25 Dowgate Hill, London, EC4R 2YA. 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. _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- Conal Tuohy http://conaltuohy.com/ @conal_tuohy +61-466-324297 _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
