> 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)
