Hi George,
According to my understanding and
https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Deprecation (see
example about 'Car'),
an option would be to include the old class URI in the RDFS annotated as
deprecated (e.g. using owl:deprecated of OWL 2), and then
use owl:equivalentClass for linking the two class URIs (this property only
means that the classes have the same extension --both class extensions
contain exactly the same set of individuals).
I.e.:
crm:E78_Collection owl:deprecated "true"^^xsd:boolean ;
owl:equivalentClass crm:E78_Curated_Holding
*// according to OWL 2, "An annotation with the owl:deprecated annotation
property and the value equal to "true"^^xsd:boolean can be used to specify
that an IRI is deprecated."*
Currently, when asking for crm:E78_Collection, we redirect
to crm:E78_Curated_Holding.
This means that, for a request type of rdf/xml, we need to include the
above two triples in the below set of returned triples:
*s* *p* *o*
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P147i_was_curated_by
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#domain
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Curated_Holding
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Curated_Holding
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E24_Physical_Human-Made_Thing
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Curated_Holding
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment This class comprises
aggregations of instances of E18 Physical Thing that are assembled and
maintained (“curated” and “preserved,” in museological terminology) by one
or more instances of E39 Actor over time for a specific purpose and
audience, and according to a particular collection development plan.
Typical instances of curated holdings are museum collections, archives,
library holdings and digital libraries. A digital library is regarded as an
instance of E18 Physical Thing because it requires keeping physical
carriers of the electronic content. Items may be added or removed from an
E78 Curated Holding in pursuit of this plan. This class should not be
confused with the E39 Actor maintaining the E78 Curated Holding often
referred to with the name of the E78 Curated Holding (e.g., “The Wallace
Collection decided…”). Collective objects in the general sense, like a tomb
full of gifts, a folder with stamps or a set of chessmen, should be
documented as instances of E19 Physical Object, and not as instances of E78
Curated Holding. This is because they form wholes either because they are
physically bound together or because they are kept together for their
functionality.
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Curated_Holding
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label Curated Holding@en
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Curated_Holding
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Class
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P109i_is_current_or_former_curator_of
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Curated_Holding
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P109_has_current_or_former_curator
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#domain
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Curated_Holding
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P147_curated
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#range
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Curated_Holding
Opinions?
Best regards,
Pavlos
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:30 AM George Bruseker via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It is the CRM SIG's practice to encode the English label of a class into
> the URI of the class itself. We thus find the official URIs of CRM encoded
> in each official version of CRMbase on the official website:
> https://cidoc-crm.org/versions-of-the-cidoc-crm
>
> e.g.:
>
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E1_CRM_Entity
>
> And this is fine. But once in a while, as we evolve the standard, we
> change the label of the class. This means we change the URI of the class as
> well.
>
> A classic example:
>
> In CRM 6.2.1
>
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Collection
>
> In CRM 7.1.1
>
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Curated_Holding
>
> Obviously, this is something we try not to do very often because it
> creates a great many implementation headaches. But it occurs and that is
> okay.
>
> When we make such changes, we imply that the name we use to identify the
> class has changed but not its substance. The intension as defined by the
> scope remains the same. All previous instances of this class remain
> instances of this class. For some reason, we want to call it something
> else.
>
> As far as a semantic network is concerned though the new and the old class
> are two different things, not one.
>
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Collection !=
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E78_Curated_Holding
>
> My question is, should we include something in the RDFS definition that
> indicates the relation between the old URI and the new URI? To state an
> equivalency? This way in a semantic network, they could be treated with the
> same meaning?
>
> Apologies if we have discussed this before and decided no, or that it
> can't be done or shouldn't be done. I don't recall.
>
> Best,
>
> George
>
> --
> George Bruseker, PhD
> Chief Executive Officer
> Takin.solutions Ltd.
> https://www.takin.solutions/
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Visiting Lecturer
Department of Management Science & Technology
Hellenic Mediterranean University
Web: http://users.ics.forth.gr/~fafalios/
Email: fafal...@ics.forth.gr
Address: N. Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, 70013 Heraklion, Greece
Tel: +30-2810-391619
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
