W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > April 2014

Re: TGN place types (broader/narrower spanning ConceptSchemes)

From: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:00:38 +0100
Message-ID: <534EA926.2000906@light.demon.co.uk>
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org

On 16/04/2014 15:27, Vladimir Alexiev wrote:
> Hi Richard!
>>> There are no standard types to state "Period of use/existence/activity of something", such as:
> - use of an Appellation or Title
> - life of a Person
> - floruit of a Person
> - period of group membership or profession of a Person (e.g. reign)
>> Wouldn't you just model these as Event or Activity, and then use the standard mechanism you describe above?
> In CRM there are standard classes & properties for Birth, Death, identifier Assignment / Deassignment.
> But there are no standard classes & properties for Life period, period of Use of an identifier/title/etc.

We probably ought to take this discussion off to the CRM-SIG list ...

Surely they aren't so much "standard classes" as "classes with 
pre-defined types"? The CRM is amenable to any class being sub-classed 
through association with a suitable E55 Type, and (IIUC) E67 Birth is 
equivalent to E63 Beginning of Existence with E55 Type='birth'.

"Life period" could be defined as a published CRM class if there is 
sufficient demand for it, and if it was felt by the SIG to be in scope.  
Until such time as that happens, it can be modelled as E7 Activity with 
E55 Type = 'life period'.  (The problem with that is more to do with 
suitable properties; the E39 Actor in an E7 Activity is seen as an 
active, rather than passive, participant in the activity.)

Similarly, the CRM could be seen as being weak in the area of describing 
the usage of ontologies.  The one specific concept which is supported is 
the declaration of a "type" (E83), with a strong taxonomic influence.  
But then, should the CRM be asked to undertake this role, or should we 
instead use frameworks like VOAF, which are designed specifically to 
describe vocabularies?

*Richard Light*
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 16:01:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:46:36 UTC