Issue 265: SPARQL endpoints

Starting Date: 
2014-10-09
Working Group: 
4
Status: 
Done
Closing Date: 
2015-02-09
Background: 

Posted by Stephen Stead   on 9/10/2014

Does anybody have a list of CRM SPARQL endpoints.

Currently I know of:-

British Museum

Yale Centre for British Art (YCBA)

Any others?

Perhaps we should start  a register on the SIG web presence. What do people think?

Rgds

SdS

posted by Dominic  on 9/10/2014

Claros

http://data.clarosnet.org/sparql/
 

There ain't very many out there yet.
 
D

posted by Paul Cripps  on 9/10/2014

ADS: http://data.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/page/


posted by Dominic on 9/10/2014

This doesn't look like a CRM endpoint at first glance?
 
D

posted by Karl Grossner    on 9/10/2014

Stephen, Dominic -
 
I wonder what counts as a CRM endpoint. I recently published a lot of Çatalhöyük excavation data, which includes a handful of ecrm: properties and classes, mostly describing top-level spatial relations on the site. There is a plan afoot to implement crmeh: eventually.
 
The endpoint is 
 
and some explanation and sample queries are here: 
 
 
Karl

posted by Dominic    on 9/10/2014

Done!
 
Welcome to the list.
 
 

 

posted by Paul Cripps  on  27/10/2014
Hi all, 
Sorry for the lateness of this reply. Hope it is still of use.
 
The ADS endpoint indeed uses CRMEH but does also include CRM classes where these are used directly. See the results of the query Vladimir listed. 
Furthermore, in conjunction with the encodings in owl / rdf of the CRMEH (at http://purl.org/crmeh#) and CRM (Erlangen), it is possible to apply reasoning. 
For example, for a pilot study recently completed looking at geosemantics, I have a chunk of the ADS data plus the CRMEH and CRM in a triplestore, extended it using GeoSPARQL to add a spatial framework for geospatial data and it works a treat (using the inferencing rule engine in Parliament).
NB I will be looking at moving over to the official CRM namespace also. Currently using Erlangen as that was what was used for CRMEH. 
 
Hope this helps!
All best,
Paul.
Outcome: 

In the 32nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 25th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig decided that there is no issue in this post. 

Oxford, February 2015