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 [email protected] LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads -----Original Message----- From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Athina Kritsotaki Sent: 12 May 2014 12:09 To: [email protected] 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:[email protected] Tel: 2810 391639 _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
