The standard says "F9 Place Equal to: E53 Place" The RDFS file [2] says "F9_Place subClassOf E53_Place". These are not the same thing.
You could state they are EquivalentClasses (or add subClassOf in the opposite direction, which is the same thing). However, I would advise against such proliferation of classes. Already in ResearchSpace we observe that fully 40% of all triples come from rdf:type statements, due to CRM's deeply nested class hierarchy. Out of 1.5B triples that's some 600M, which is a lot and has significant consequences. I hope to say a lot more about this at CRMEX [1] Can you give an example of a FRBR F9_Place that is *not* a CRM E53_Place ? Following Occam's Razor principle, classes shouldn’t be created without proven need. EquivalentClasses should be used when two classes are created by independent authorities, have been used for years, there are data using these classes, and only later it’s discovered they represent the same entity. But I don't think that's the case here. I would strongly recommend that the FRBRoo ontology simply imports CRM and uses CRM classes, without introducing CRM-equivalent classes. (In fact, I would recommend a similar thing for the FRBRoo standard: just refer to CRM classes and if needed amend their scope notes in CRM. Don’t repeat in FRBRoo definitions of CRM-equivalent classes. This will cut down the volume of the standard significantly) Cheers! V -- [1] http://www.ontotext.com/CRMEX Workshop "Practical Experiences with CIDOC CRM and its Extensions", 26 Sep 2013 in Valetta, Malta Please submit! [2] www.cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/FRBR2.0-draft-B.rdfs
