Dear Martin On 1 December 2014 at 17:26, martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is a deep methodological question: > "True that crm:E19_Physical_Object "includes all aggregates of objects", > but I feel the need of something like crm:Fx_Assemblage between > crm:E19_Physical_Object > and E78_Collection, because I would like to make a clear (conceptual) > distinction between: > > <helmet> <crm:Py_is_component_of> <armor> or <coin> < > crm:Py_is_component_of > <hoard> > > and > <wheel> <crm:P46i_forms_part_of> <car>" > > This is not what we have made the CRM for. You SHOULD not make such a > distinction, > if there is no use case that would create query ambiguity. CRM is not a > language to describe the nuances of cultural heritage objects. Since a > hoard cannot have parts like a car, and a car not parts like a hoard, the > distinction does not help in any query. > > My main criterion (not always explicit !) to use one property or other is not the query (dis)ambiguity, but the facility of the semantic reasoning, i.e. inference. Am I wrong ? So, my feeling (not more than that) is that the reasoner is helped if crm:Py_is_component_of suggests that the subject of the assertion is a thing "functional" in itself, vs. crm:P46i_forms_part_of that suggests otherwise. We have built the CRM because we had such principles. It is overdue to write them down. Good idea ! Best, Dan > >
