[Crm-sig] new CIDOC CRM issue

Stephen Stead steads at paveprime.com
Mon May 12 22:53:06 EEST 2014


The question is not could we generalise the property to E2 but are there
potential instances of E2 that are not E3's or E4's that potentially do not
have decomposition. I do not know and additionally I am not sure I want to
spend a lot of time making sure that by their very nature all E2's are
decomposable!! If there is a pressing use case for this generalisation then
let us, by all means, think about it but .......
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 [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Athina
Kritsotaki
Sent: 12 May 2014 12:09
To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Subject: [Crm-sig] new CIDOC CRM issue

Dear all,

About the properties P5 consists of and P9 consists of: is there a
conceptual distinction between these properties? The one is about the
decomposition of a condition state and the other is about the decomposition
of a period, but both classes are classified under same nature, under E2
Temporal Entity; so, what I mean is, why not moving the property
“consists of” to the higher class, to E2 Temporal Entity (their
superclass), in order to have one property to describe the same thing for
both E3 and E4?

RGs
Athina Kritsotaki


----------------------------
Athina Kritsotaki
Information System Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation of Research & Technology
e-mail:athinak at ics.forth.gr
Tel: 2810 391639



_______________________________________________
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