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 [email protected] LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 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 [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
