Added missing rdfs:domain and rdfs:range definitions#2
Conversation
Changed scope note of E41 Changed scope note of E90 Changed scope Note of P50, P52, P54, P55 Deleted P88 and P88i Changed range and scope note of P142, domain of P142i Changed scope note of P128 Changed scope note of P147 Changed range of P8 to E18 - scope note remained unchanged like in the original cidoc crm document Changed name and scope note of P69 Made P69 not symmetric anymore and added the inverse P69i
Filename ecrm.owl is not dated so the namespace inside shouldn't be dated. Using git tags is a bad idea, they're for merging dev efforts not using different ontology versions. My scripts work only for /current
added rdfs:label to each class & property. used ecrm-labels.pl. Mark says Protege will remember them, so this needs to be run only only once
ecrm-inverse.owl, ecrm-inverse-transitive.owl
someone who groks Markdown, please prettyfy this with some headings
…5i and P9i because ecrm would not be owl-dl anymore if the properties are transitive.
Changed scope not of P138 - Example was not added like quoted in the amendments but changed like in the scope note of P138. Changed scope note of P69, P56 Added E91, E92, E93 Added Restriction to E21_Person that at least two parents must be there like suggested by the quantification. Added P153, P154, P155 Added P156 - without an inverse, as the CIDOC CRM documents. Quantification is described as One to One but (0,1:1,1) in the document? How is this possible without an inverse? Added P157 - Quantification is stated as many to many, necessary, dependent (1,n:0,n) - however this is only many to many, necessary and not dependent. Therefore the quantification was skipped. Added P158, P159, P160, P161, P162, P163, P164 - However without quantification as they don't have inverses.
|
Hey Matthias, welcome to the team - your contribution is appreciated :) I did not go through all of your changes as the diff for .owl-files is a mess in github. Did you consider that the current version of the ecrm with the missing domains and ranges is CIDOC CRM Version 6.2.2 and not Version 6.2? If you're looking for Version 6.2 you could use version 150929. The missing domains and ranges in the most recent version of the ecrm are due to points that needed clarification on the CIDOC CRM Version 6.2.2. However the current state of the document looks promising. Best Mark |
|
Hi Mark, thank you for your quick answer and the clarification. I'm new to CIDOC and the ECRM and want to use it in the context of a project I'm working on. There every property requires a RDFS domain/range definition. Bests, Matthias |
|
Using dated ECRM URLs in your data is not a good idea since that lowers the chance of interoperation to nearly zero.
You think so? I think we shoudn't make RDF before CRM SIG makes RDF
That URL change was enough reason for Getty (http://linked.art) to stop using this class. |
|
Dear all, thank you for the comments. @fischmat Could you please check if your additions are also missing on the ecrm_150929.owl? We indeed deleted some domains and ranges because the CIDOC CRM 6.2.1 said to do so. So it might be that in 150929 they were still there. As you know what you've added you're the only one who could check :) @VladimirAlexiev typically I would agree with you. However we try to implement the crm-versions as soon as possible to see possible pitfalls in the current development of the cidoc crm. So we could address them on the working group meetings and talk about solutions directly. Of course we could not publish these results as .owl-files here - but I think some others might have interest in them, too. Currently there are some really rough developments (e.g. deletion of all subclasses of E41) which have major inpact - so using the "current" might make problems there. Best Mark |
|
Hi, I checked ecrm_150929.owl and found that the following properties have missing definitions: Without definition of rdfs:domain:
Without definition of rdfs:range:
Without definition of both rdfs:domain and rdfs:range:
Some of the definitions could be inferred by a reasoner through the Bests, Matthias |
|
american-art/aaa#16 (comment) is the discussion whether to use E78 at all. |
4 participants
Hi all,
when working with the current release of the ECRM I recognized that some RDFS domain and range definitions were missing. I added those following the definition in
CIDOC 6.2.
Hope I can help to improve the project.
Bests,
Matthias