It's not really though. In the majority of cases when you talk about a name you need to talk about a language too. Especially if CRM wants to be inclusive etc. We have a subclass 'title' of appellation that does allow but it only works for inanimate objects. So it is useless as a general case. The use of E33_E41 should be a default in most modelling cases with E41 being the exception (mostly names are in a language). The general idea of a name in a language is not an arcane concept, but the majority concept. Needing to use an arcane construct either E33_E41 or multi instantiation for the majority case when the standard could just provide the appropriate class and document it and allow people to build around it, would be a superior way to go imho.
On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 12:04 PM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Surely the RDFS E33_E41 is just a workaround for a common multiple > instantiation that is problematic in RDFS land not a need for a new class. > > > > *From:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *George > Bruseker via Crm-sig > *Sent:* 07 November 2022 15:58 > *To:* Elias Tzortzakakis <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a > subclass of E41 and E33 > > > > Thank Elias, > > > > You are definitely right that it is ok in the actual doc but mis > referenced in the xml commentary. My point is not that the RDFS is wrong > and it is great that it is produced and solid. I am more interested in how > NOT having legitimate classes in the standard but compromising and just > putting them in RDFS means that a) we create all sorts of arcana around > what should be an open standard and b) because the class is not documented > in the specification document we don't actually have a rule to know what is > should be called. > > > > So it's more a process and principles level issue. > > > > Cheers, > > > > George > > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 5:29 PM Elias Tzortzakakis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear George, > > > > The rdfs defines 1 such class using just 1 name the > ‘E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation’. > > The second name reference you are referring to > ‘E41_E33_Linguistic_Appellation’ exists only in the XML comments of the > rdfs file. > > > > There has been a discussion and decision about the correct order. > > Please see issue > https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-555-rdfs-implementation-and-related-issues > and search for post starting with In the 51st CIDOC CRM & 44th FRBRoo SIG > meeting > > *Decision*: keeping numbers of the numeric identifier in order. > > > > Thus the rdfs is valid and consistent but the comment lines should also > definitely be adapted to this decision. > > Thanks for spotting, > > > > I will correct this ASAP, > > > > Kind regards, > > Elias Tzortzakakis > > > > > > *From:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *George > Bruseker via Crm-sig > *Sent:* Monday, November 7, 2022 5:02 PM > *To:* crm-sig <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [Crm-sig] error in RDFS for 7.1.1 for the class that is a > subclass of E41 and E33 > > > > Dear all, > > > > There are two references to the class that is a subclass of E41 and E33 > that allows you to talk about the language of a name (which is a super > common requirement... actually almost always necessary). I can't give you > it's official name because I dont know because it isn't in the spec doc and > it doesn't have ONE name in the RDFS. > > > > In one reference it is called: E41_E33_Linguistic_Appellation and then > later it is called E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation. Try find f in the rdfs > doc and you will what I mean. > > > > https://cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/7.1.1/CIDOC_CRM_v7.1.1.rdfs > > > > > > Actually I don't care what it is called, but it would be nice if it was > really, really clear. > > > > I think this speaks against the practice of hiding classes we don't like > and call implementation classes in the RDFS and should make them full > classes in the standard so that they are fully vetted and controlled. It is > a fundamental class. It should be in the standard in the first place. > > > > And definitely it should not have two different name in the RDFS. Can we > confirm that it is supposed to be E33_E41 and not E41_E33? > > > > Cheers, > > > > George > > > > -- > > George Bruseker, PhD > > Chief Executive Officer > > Takin.solutions Ltd. > > https://www.takin.solutions/ > > > > > -- > > George Bruseker, PhD > > Chief Executive Officer > > Takin.solutions Ltd. > > https://www.takin.solutions/ > -- George Bruseker, PhD Chief Executive Officer Takin.solutions Ltd. https://www.takin.solutions/
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
