That seems like a big change, and long-term for the better, but disruptive in the shorter term while implementations change their namespaces.
A request, if we do go this route ... please don't nest namespaces, as it makes life much harder for processing. For example, if CRM base is http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/ then E55_Type would be http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E55_Type. But then if sci is http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/crm-sci/ processors need to be careful not to use the CRM prefix, with a term "crm-sci/O19_Encounter" Thus, please, something like http://www.cidoc-crm.org/extensions/crm-sci/ as the namespace URI would be preferable. Thanks! Rob On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 1:30 PM Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig < crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > Dear George, all, > > I agree that it is better to have namespaces under cidoc-crm.org for the > official extensions, e.g.: > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/crmsci/ (or any other similar uri > that starts with http://www.cidoc-crm.org/) > Also, these URIs, as well as the URIs of their classes and properties, > should resolve to the latest "published version", based on the http request > type (as we now do with the base model). > > We discussed a bit about this on issue 460 (see point F): > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pU_WJcCU5R-Fz_NTU1VcjhocLG--rsb04xW9dqrCjC4/edit#heading=h.2i15qaj965p7 > > When a new published version is available for one of the extensions > (ideally aligned with crm 7.1.1), we can give it a try. > > Best regards, > Pavlos > > > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 11:57 AM George Bruseker via Crm-sig < > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Thanks Nicola, that makes sense. I wonder if it is worth talking about >> what namespace the extensions have going forward. Taking CRMDig as an >> example. It arose from a project within which FORTH was a major partner and >> is an outcome of that work. It thus makes sense that it is registered under >> a FORTH namespace. But if it is considered an official extension, should it >> eventually have a namespace within the cidoc crm world for >> generally consistency / understandability / maintenance? May be worth a SIG >> conversation? >> >> Best, >> >> George >> >> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 9:51 AM Nicola Carboni <nic.carb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear George, >>> >>> The namespace to be used should be the xml:base value in the RDF >>> document. Example: >>> >>> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"; >>> xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"; xml:lang="en" >>> xml:base="http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/CRMsci/";> >>> >>> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"; >>> xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"; >>> xml:base="http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMgeo/"; xml:lang="en"> >>> >>> The confusion started because the namespace has changed over time >>> >>> CRMdig 3.2.2 had >>> >>> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"; >>> xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"; >>> xml:base="http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMext/CRMdig.rdfs/"; xml:lang="en"> >>> >>> The latest version is >>> >>> rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"; >>> xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"; >>> xml:base="http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl/CRMdig/"; xml:lang="en"> >>> >>> Generally they are both documented in prefix.cc, hence someone is still >>> using the old ones. >>> >>> For clarifying the confusion, It is possible to write explicitly in the >>> RDF itself the preferred namespace and prefix, using the properties >>> vann:preferredNamespaceUri and vann:preferredNamespacePrefix . Example (in >>> ttl) from VIR <http://prefix.cc> : >>> >>> vann:preferredNamespacePrefix "vir" ;vann:preferredNamespaceUri >>> "http://w3id.org/vir#"; ; >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Nicola >>> >>> -- >>> Nicola Carboni >>> Visual Contagions >>> Digital Humanities - dh.unige.ch >>> Faculté des Lettres >>> Université de Genève >>> 5, rue de Candolle >>> 1211 Genève 4 >>> >>> On 15 Dec 2021, at 11:58, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I am wondering if anybody else struggles with what official namespace ot >>> use for the CRM extensions. I'm not really sure how the situation >>> stands. >>> Should the minisites for each extension have a prominent place where >>> they >>> display the namespaces just so we all follow the same procedure? Do I >>> miss >>> what is already there? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> George >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > -- > Pavlos Fafalios > > Postdoctoral researcher (Marie Curie IF - Project ReKnow > <https://reknow.ics.forth.gr/>) > Centre for Cultural Informatics & Information Systems Laboratory > Institute of Computer Science - FORTH > > and > > Visiting Lecturer > Department of Management Science & Technology > Hellenic Mediterranean University > > Address: N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, 70013 Heraklion, Greece > Email: fafal...@ics.forth.gr > Tel: +30-2810-391619 > Web: http://users.ics.forth.gr/~fafalios/ > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
