Change CIDOC-CRM Namespace

[kba]

In EDM: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/cidoc-crm#P80_end_is_qualified_by
In DM2E: http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/P80F.end_is_qualified_by

We should change our CIDOC-CRM namespace to fit the one by EDM (which is resolvable), although I find our version cleaner. Nonetheless, to simplify the mapping to EDM, this should be changed in the next DM2E model version.

[edroege]

Corrected and changed to EDM's CIDOC namespace in model 1.2 rev 0.1

[kba]

Let's keep this issue open so data providers are aware of the issue.

In DM2E/dm2e-ontologies@5d5468e the model was corrected in such a way that using any of the two variants of the CIDOC-CRM namespace will result in the correct namespace in the EDM version, when using the final DM2E Model 1.1.

However, validating data with the obsolete CIDOC-CRM namespace against the upcoming DM2E Model version 1.2 draft shall result in stern warnings/errors, maybe it should be marked as deprecated for the next version and an error in the version after the next.

For now, we can either adapt the 1.1 validation to accept both obsolete and correct CIDOC-CRM namespace or we need to release the first draft of 1.2. really soon, an adapted revision of the validator and conversion tools.

We should also weigh the semantic gain of having a nice namespace against the trouble of re-mapping all the data and adapting all our tools. Since I noticed this namespace glitch only recently, implementing the DM2E-EDM conversion, it might also be okay to post-pone this to a later time since it's a lot of work for both providers and developers.

[d0rg0ld]

This is strange. Looking up crm here http://prefix.cc/crm results in three namespaces all different from Europeanas namespace. Anyway, we should stick with Europeana. I included this in the mapping recommendations

[d0rg0ld]

Did some little googling: In fact Europeanas crm namespace is obsolete, see here

http://www.cidoc-crm.org/official_release_cidoc.html

and here

http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/cidoc-crm%20naming%20proposal%20(303-redirect)_v4.pdf

[kba]

Since we're targeting Europeana, I can live with the wrong namespace as long as our data integrates well. What really confuses me is not so much the namespace change but that the naming scheme has changed, i.e. that the names of the properties themselves have changed subtly (P80_end_is_qualified_by vs P80F.end_is_qualified_by note the . and the F). While the namespace used by Europeana might be obsolete, the URIs are resolvable and the namespace can be changed at some point in the future. IMHO, it's more important to create data that Europeana can validate and ingest right now.