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

Vladimir Alexiev vladimir.alexiev at ontotext.com
Tue Jul 10 10:53:50 EEST 2012


> But the object does not "refer to" the scriptwriter. In fact the link to the
> script writer is purely in the documentation of the object.

How do you know this? Do you know the BM data better than its original creators?

The BM curators must have had a reason to include that reference in the BM data (table Associated Person).
Maybe there's an incription in the drawing that mentions the play and the script-writer.
It is not represented as an inscription (merely as a reference), so we cannot map it to E34_Inscription, 
but we want to capture it as a "refers to" property.

>> what is your justification for having P62_depicts, but not having the properties denoted "???" in my original email?
> 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

Ok, so the reason for lacking these shortcuts is not logical or ontological, it's merely "no established practice".

Now 3 people gave examples (trying to establish practice), yet it seems you discount them as somehow incorrect.
But since there is no ontological argument *for* P62 and *against* the "???" shortcuts, 
all of your counter-arguments can be turned against P62 as well!

Best regards! V



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list