Re: [Crm-sig] URI to refer to CIDOC-CRM and FRBRoo namespace(s) and concepts?

[Vladimir Alexiev]

Hi Regine!

> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crm-concepts/E22
> Please let us know if these are not valid anymore

- http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crm-concepts/ returns an older version of the
spec (5.0.1).
- http://www.cidoc-crm.org/official_release_cidoc.html lists different
official namespace URIs.

On 2 Nov 2011 I raised the following issues:
- I think labels are a must for robustness and understandability (i.e. IMHO
the numbers are not enough)
- RDF names including a dot are SPARQL- and Turtle-unfriendly (cannot use
prefixes). This hinders practical development immensely: prefixes are an
essential aid to understandability.
- the RDFS doesn't define any stable URI, which hinders interoperability
The last one is now resolved, but "RDFS English labels" still uses dot...

Because of these issues, in ResearchSpace we use Erlangen CRM.
@prefix crm:   .
This URI resolves and returns the ontology, following Linked Data
principles.

Another benefit of ECRM is that it declares owl:inverseOf and
owl:TransitiveProperty

Re: [Crm-sig] URI to refer to CIDOC-CRM and FRBRoo namespace(s) and concepts?

[Regine Stein]

Hi,

This requires indeed some official fixing since composing the URI from

http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crm-concepts/ plus entity number
e.g. http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crm-concepts/E22

was the advice given by ICS-FORTH at the time of delivering LIDO v1.0.
(and the LIDO spec follows it btw consistently, differences below seem 
to be due to word-wraps)


Please let us know if these are not valid anymore (which I wouldn't 
consider best practice..)


Best,
Regine


Am 26.03.2012 18:18, schrieb Vladimir Alexiev:

Hi Michael!


The LIDO spec says: "CIDOC-CRM concept definitions are given at
http://www.cidoccrm.org/crm-concepts/ Data values in the sub-element term

may often

be: Man-Made Object (with conceptID

"http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crm-concepts/E22";),

Man-Made Feature (http://www.cidoc-rm.org/crmconcepts/E25), Collection
(http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmconcepts/E78)."

I think this is bad advice on several fronts:
- I see 4 URLs above, and all 4 are different ;-)
- It doesn't refer to the official release URI (see below)
- I think that using numbers only, without the English labels, is calling
for trouble and errors

The page http://www.cidoc-crm.org/official_release_cidoc.html lists some
oficial URIs.
I would use this one: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm-english-label
.
This URL resolves (following linked data principles) and redirects to the
current version:
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/5.0.4/cidoc-crm-english-label

Martin, I'd suggest several fixes:
1. Please make the official URIs into links:
  http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm-english-label and
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm .
2. Please fix this link later in the page to use the same URI for the
current version:
   http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc_crm_v5.0.4_english_label.rdfs
3. Fix the MIME type returned by the server
-- currently it is:
curl --head http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/5.0.4/cidoc-crm-english-label
Content-Type: text/xml
-- should be:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-MIME-Type
Content-Type: application/rdf+xml


Can I just add on the relevant FRBRoo term ID (e.g. F26 for movies) to the

URI prefix

for CRM? E.g. yielding "http://www.cidoccrm.org/crm-concepts/F26";?

You shouldn't, as these are separate ontologies


2. Is there a URI to denote CIDOC-CRM or FRBRoo itself as the "source" of

a

concept? I.e. the URI for the concept scheme?

Do you mean SKOS "concept scheme"?

Cheers! Vladimir

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] URI to refer to CIDOC-CRM and FRBRoo namespace(s) and concepts?

[Vladimir Alexiev]

Hi Michael!

> The LIDO spec says: "CIDOC-CRM concept definitions are given at
> http://www.cidoccrm.org/crm-concepts/ Data values in the sub-element term
may often
> be: Man-Made Object (with conceptID
"http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crm-concepts/E22";),
> Man-Made Feature (http://www.cidoc-rm.org/crmconcepts/E25), Collection
> (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmconcepts/E78)."

I think this is bad advice on several fronts:
- I see 4 URLs above, and all 4 are different ;-)
- It doesn't refer to the official release URI (see below)
- I think that using numbers only, without the English labels, is calling
for trouble and errors

The page http://www.cidoc-crm.org/official_release_cidoc.html lists some
oficial URIs.
I would use this one: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm-english-label
. 
This URL resolves (following linked data principles) and redirects to the
current version:
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/5.0.4/cidoc-crm-english-label

Martin, I'd suggest several fixes:
1. Please make the official URIs into links:
 http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm-english-label and
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm .
2. Please fix this link later in the page to use the same URI for the
current version:
  http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc_crm_v5.0.4_english_label.rdfs
3. Fix the MIME type returned by the server
-- currently it is:
curl --head http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/5.0.4/cidoc-crm-english-label
Content-Type: text/xml
-- should be:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-MIME-Type
Content-Type: application/rdf+xml

> Can I just add on the relevant FRBRoo term ID (e.g. F26 for movies) to the
URI prefix
> for CRM? E.g. yielding "http://www.cidoccrm.org/crm-concepts/F26";?

You shouldn't, as these are separate ontologies

> 2. Is there a URI to denote CIDOC-CRM or FRBRoo itself as the "source" of
a
> concept? I.e. the URI for the concept scheme?

Do you mean SKOS "concept scheme"?

Cheers! Vladimir