This is intriguing. I've never used the property, PX_is_related_to or PXX_is_related_to myself and it isn't in any of my documentation. I have checked my BM mapping manual (361 pages) and the only mention of "related to" is a BM production association code for which the semantics have been ascertained and mapped to core CRM properties. Additionally when you attempt to use it in a query on the BM Endpoint, it does not exist in any record instance. See
http://collection.britishmuseum.org/sparql?sample=PREFIX+bmo%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fcollection.britishmuseum.org%2Fid%2Fontology%2F%3E%0D%0APREFIX+rso%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchspace.org%2Fontology%2F%3E%0D%0Aselect+*%0D%0A%7B%0D%0A%3Fa++bmo%3APX_is_related_to+%3Fb%0D%0A%7D for PX_is_related_to or http://collection.britishmuseum.org/sparql?sample=PREFIX+bmo%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fcollection.britishmuseum.org%2Fid%2Fontology%2F%3E%0D%0APREFIX+rso%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchspace.org%2Fontology%2F%3E%0D%0Aselect+*%0D%0A%7B%0D%0A%3Fa++bmo%3APXX_is_related_to+%3Fb%0D%0A%7D for PXX_is_related_to I've also had a look at the turtle ontology file containing our extensions and cant find it. It is possible I suppose that someone decided to add something like this (and if so mistakenly) at some point , but I have no recollection of it - or perhaps someone else created it based on the BM extension convention and I wonder if that is where the extra X came from. PX stands for Property Extension (used by BM) - I'm not sure what PXX is - it would certainly be interesting to know its origins. However, Martin is of course right, both in terms of theory and practice, regardless of where it originated from. D orcid.org/0000-0002-5539-3126 On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 6:56 PM, martin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22/9/2016 8:48 μμ, Simon Spero wrote: > > If the CRM is interpreted as an OWL ontology, then the most general > relationship between two objects is *owl:topObjectProperty. * > > This property has very weak semantics (e.g. that there is some known > relationship between a and b). > > One benefit / problem with using this property is that it is a super > property of all object properties, so you may need to be careful to turn > inference on / off. > > You can also define your own equivalent placeholder, which will make it > easier to use inference when you can start upgrading to more specific > relationships. > > Simon > > Sounds like a good solution! It is standard, and obviously less committed > than anything in the CRM... > > Martin > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | > | Email: [email protected] | > | > Center for Cultural Informatics | > Information Systems Laboratory | > Institute of Computer Science | > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | > N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > >
