> I would regard explicit modelling of the Place as an overkill. > Since it is currently a text field, I'd leave it as a note at the E25.
Here's a representation that: - equates inscription (conceptual) and feature (physical); since BM data has no info distinguishing between the two - represents the place (section) as a separate node, to distinguish between the "transcription" and "place" free texts. - uses rdfs:label instead of extra Apellation nodes <obj/inscription/1> a crm:E34_Inscription; crm:P65i_is_shown_by <obj>; # E34(E36)-P65i-E22(E24) rdfs:label "[inscription transcription free text]". <obj/inscription/1> a crm:E25_Man-Made_Feature; crm:P56i_is_found_on <obj>. # E25(E26)-P56i-E22(E19) <obj/section/1> a crm:E53_Place crm:P59i_is_located_on_or_within <obj>; # E53-P59i-E22(E18) rdfs:label "[inscription position free text]". <obj/inscription/1> crm:P53_has_former_or_current_location <obj/section/1>. # E25(E18)-P53-E53 (Josh, I sent you a slightly expanded version with pointers to diagrams).
