[Crm-sig] ISSUE: P62 needs a parent and a sibling

Stephen Stead steads at paveprime.com
Mon Jul 9 16:39:45 EEST 2012


I think the simple answer is we saw P62 used in actual data models and so we
provided it as a short-cut (you are quite correct it is a short-cut!). We
have not seen the others and so had no justification for creating them.
Rgds
SdS

Stephen Stead
Tel +44 20 8668 3075 
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail steads at paveprime.com
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads


-----Original Message-----
From: crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On
Behalf Of Vladimir Alexiev
Sent: 09 July 2012 13:09
To: 'crm-sig'
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: P62 needs a parent and a sibling

Matthew> I agree with Steve. I've struggled to think of any examples 
Matthew> that don't constitute
> the physical object acting as a carrier for a conceptual object.

Matthew and Steve, I think you've missed the point: 
I did not say I have a case with *only* a shortcut "aboutness" property from
Physical, where a longcut path through Conceptual could not exist.
I said that often it's useful to use a shortcut, without having to create a
longcut.

Can you give any example of a physical object having P62_depicts that would
preclude the existence of a conceptual object (E36 Visual Item) having
P138_represents towards the same target?
If you cannot, what is your justification for having P62_depicts, but not
having the properties denoted "???" in my original email?


_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list