Yes, if we have different URIs for each version of E5 Event, then this
will complicate matters during implementation in local systems. If one
wants to work out the difference in reasoning rules across the versions
then they would need to refer to the whole document not each individual
class.
>
>
>
> > > I will point out that on the CRM site, there is also an entire
> > > architecture wherein each version has its own overall
> presentation:
> > > e.g.: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Version/version-6.2.1
> >
> > I think this should be maintained but not used as URIs for
Dear all,
This very interesting conversation was up to now focusing on CRMbase.
But what about the extensions family ? Often pointing from one extension
to antoher ?
One major point for having machine actionable, consistent ontologies is
to have a mechanism to point to the versions of each
My underlying assumption would be that the default thing served up would
be html, but you could reach the other representation consistently
through adding an appropriate ending or whatever would be most
suitable... but that people looking at the html should have a shiny red
button type clue
Hi Robert,
Yes it is really quite nice actually. A hidden gem as it were.
About why it doesn't exist past 6.2.2, it's a bit odd. I would have said it
is because it is only made for official release versions (like 6.2.1) but I
see that it has been made for other non official versions. Perhaps it
>
>
>
> Links would certainly be useful but the web server's content negotiation
> mechanism should be enough to deliver the right format to the client, is
> this what you mean?
>
>
My underlying assumption would be that the default thing served up would be
html, but you could reach the other
Hi George,
On 17.01.20 10:47, George Bruseker wrote:
> I will point out that on the CRM site, there is also an entire architecture
> wherein each version has its own overall presentation: e.g.:
> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Version/version-6.2.1
Wow, that is a really useful format, I didn't know it
For the appearance/presentation of the whole ontology, it is an html
representation of the main document that we create. This seems fine.
Would it be useful to be able to provide links explicitly at the top of
this document to click over to encodings? This way somehow we can better
consolidate
Dear all,
It seems a very fruitful discussion. Can I add some other 'complications'
into it.
Starting from what Detlev proposes:
> > For formal specifications such as ontologies, there is a widely adopted
> pattern for change management which goes like this:
> >
> >
I agree with Detlev's proposal. Also, I believe that versions should not
be included in the class URIs. These are not normally used to retrieve
reasoning rules but only to identify classes, right? Resolving the class
URI should return all versions of the class.
All the best,
Thanasis
On
> Martin Doerr hat am 16. Januar 2020 um 13:27
> geschrieben:
>
> (...)
> At FORTH we will implement anything that is regarded good practice, and
> does not create a manual overhead we cannot manage.
For formal specifications such as ontologies, there is a widely adopted pattern
for change
On 16/01/2020 12:09, George Bruseker wrote:
Dear all,
I agree that this is an ongoing issue that creates barriers to uptake because
of confusion. It is an oft repeated question and deserves a clear answer. We
need a solution based on community wide best practice. Suggestions?
George,
It
Dear all,
I have a python script that already does this for CRM and the Linked Art
extension.
The results of that script for Linked Art can be seen here:
https://linked.art/ns/terms/ -- the entire ontology is returned when
dereferencing the namespace
Dear Francesco,
At FORTH we will implement anything that is regarded good practice, and
does not create a manual overhead we cannot manage. Volunteers to design
whatever is needed?
Best,
Martin
On 1/16/2020 12:45 PM, Francesco Beretta wrote:
Dear all,
I have a question about CIDOC CRM
Dear all,
I agree that this is an ongoing issue that creates barriers to uptake
because of confusion. It is an oft repeated question and deserves a clear
answer. We need a solution based on community wide best practice.
Suggestions?
Best,
George
On Thu., Jan. 16, 2020, 12:51 p.m. Francesco
Dear all,
I have a question about CIDOC CRM URI management.
The last published version of CRMbase is 6.2.1. If I take the RDF
serialization, I find this base URI:
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/
If I sent this URI in the web:
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/E92_Spacetime_Volume
I
16 matches
Mail list logo
