[Crm-sig] ISSUE: P88-P89

Vladimir Alexiev vladimir.alexiev at ontotext.com
Thu Dec 22 14:49:53 EET 2011

> Should P88 be defined inversely (P88 forms part of (consists of) and then
be subp of P89,
> or should that be in an RDF recommendation 

I think it should be made a subproperty in the standard, and then in RDF.
It would be better not to invert it (to avoid the need for data migration),
but if you cannot have "forward is sup-property of backward" in the
standard; or it would be too confusing:
invert it.

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list