Dear Martin,
I am not a formal member of SIG but I would like to follow this discussion.
So, if there is a separate list please let me know.
You might find useful a recently published article entitled “Representing
provenance and track changes of cultural heritage metadata in RDF: a survey
of existing approaches” https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.08477
Thanks
Manolis
On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 20:19, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
wrote:
> You are all welcome!
>
> I'll send you soon an outline of what I have in mind.
>
> All the best,
>
> Martin
>
> n 5/14/2023 10:55 PM, Dominic Oldman wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> I would like to be involved.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dominic
>
>
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2023 at 19:34, Martin Doerr wrote:
>
>> Dear Dominic, all,
>>
>> Yes, I will always defend that modeling is technology independent,
>> limited however to the degree that science and technology should at least
>> provide the prospect of implementation in the near future, and some viable
>> approximations immediately. We definitely started the CRM before the
>> technology was generally available but expected. The primary criterion is
>> that the model reflects our insight about the scientific discourse we
>> target at. As such, I see the model-level discussion to be between
>> reasoning about "proposition sets" versus a "single binary proposition".
>> The technical discussion should be about best and most effective
>> approximations, regardless popular or not. The effectiveness will depend on
>> use cases and platform requirements.
>>
>> Please let us know, who is interested in participating in a narrower
>> subgroup for creating a document analyzing the alternatives.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> On 5/11/2023 8:01 PM, Dominic Oldman wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Just a quick question on this. We develop the model independently of
>> technology. I can see that this discussion is getting technical. I
>> currently implement propositions sets using RDF named graphs because we can
>> and it works but it is not stipulated. Rob suggests that there are tech
>> upgrades that might suit this issue better. However, isn't it the case that
>> we need to be able to implement in different ways (I don't currently know
>> much about RDF*) depending on the systems we have? How is RDF* implemented?
>> - is it backwardly compatible with what we are all using? Do we give more
>> modelling credence to things that everyone uses? etc., etc. But aren't
>> these questions the reason why we are technology independent? Given this,
>> my question is, - have we got to a stage when the modelling now depends on
>> a particular technology? Can someone provide some clarification on this?
>> Which solution is tech independent? Are they all independent of this tech
>> discussion? One is at least.
>>
>> D
>>
>> On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 16:18, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <
>> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Robert,
>>>
>>> We have just created the new issue to discuss this in detail. We should
>>> prepare a detailed analysis, citing all pros and cons. May be we continue
>>> this discussion better in a subgroup?
>>>
>>> Named Graphs are not a very specific technology, if we take the fact
>>> that all current triple stores are actually implemented as quad stores,
>>> regardless whether they call the construct "Named Graph" or "context". We
>>> have used and implemented this feature, and it is very performant. It runs
>>> on BlazeGraph as well. I think their is not a simple answer to that.
>>> Performance can become a major issue, when you have really a lot of data.
>>>
>>> For the attribution of artists and "style of" vs "school of" etc. of the
>>> collection management system of the British Museum, the ResearchSpace
>>> Project had created a set of subproperties of P14 carried out by, which
>>> could be used as input for a roles vocabulary.
>>>
>>> I did not propose to use Dig as is, but to consider the construct. The
>>> W3C annotation model is very interesting. We would need a connection to the
>>> Creation Event of making an annotation, and whose opinion it is, in order
>>> to make it CRM compatible. Why not allowing a Named Graph as target? We
>>> should compare the segment construct of the W3C annotation model with the
>>> METS types and extensions we used. The Dig model was used to trace
>>> provenance of annotated area through transformations of digital objects.
>>> That was very important for exchanging research insights on 3D models. To
>>> be discussed!
>>>
>>> We can extend E13 to Proposition Sets, which would be very important to
>>> describe consistently CRMinf and generalized observations. That would then
>>> be most effectively implementd via Named Graphs.
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 5/11/2023 3:41 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If the intent is that the assertion is in the discourse, and not a
>>> syntactic workaround for .1 properties that would be unnecessary if we had
>>> RDF* or property graphs, then I would say
