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

[Vladimir Alexiev]

> CRM-SIG
> has to consider this new evidence from the issue you submitted in the
> next meetings and may introduce new constructs to describe this
> practice, if there are no other adequate ways.

Thanks! Looking forward to it. 
Is this entered in the list of Issues on the website?

> the intermediate object must be regarded as relevant for
> information integration, and a shortcut
> may be regarded as counterproductive to information integration?

But only if you have info about the intermediate object. 
E.g. if you have info about an Image, sure you'll create a node, and use P138 as longpath, and *may* use P62 as shortcut.

But if you don't have such info, what's the point of introducing an "empty" parasitic node?
You'd just use P62 directly.

I think the ontological/epistemological arguments given so far apply just as well *against* P62.
IMHO the existence of P62, plus the data examples provided, justify 
the addition of P67a, P129a (as P67, P129 but having Physical domain).

(Note: P67a, P129a are bad numbers, better to use some brand new numbers)