>Is there a need for an ECRM implementation of CIDOC CRM 5.1 or 5.1.2 or drafts in general?
I think so. Not necessarily all, but those that seem “major releases”.
There was a recent discussion on the CRM list about the “draft” status of 5.1; maybe it can inform this discussion
> 1) What classes and properties should be implemented? All or only some?
ALL (or none ;-). Else uncertainty will result.
>2) How should be dealt with incomplete information?
>2) to be conservative with missing information.
> If a piece of information, however, can be clearly inferred from scope note or superclass/property, it may be added
Sounds reasonable.
> In github, releases are marked with tags, <
https://github.com/erlangen-crm/ecrm/tree/CIDOC-CRMv5.0.4>
Following LOD publication principles (and COOLURIs), Ontologies must resolve at the namespace URI.
The version should be in the URI.
So: are you prepared to use the above github URL as namespace URI?
Maybe google "github ontology versions" can provide some advice...
I think it's extremely important to have the latest version (draft or not) at a fixed location (ecrm.owl) and with fixed namespace (/current/).
Else you'll make people having to migrate URLs in knowledge bases, which is a huge pain.
Also, my scripts work on /current so I made ecrm-140212.owl vs ecrm.owl in github.
Cheers! V
Note: I prefer ecrm-5.1 instead of ecrm-140212 .
It doesn’t matter when an ECRM version was made, it matters which CRM version it was based upon.