My apologies to Phil! I found it but it was not quite as interpreted. It comes from a document in 2012 and was a particular specialisation of a database association code and not intended as a general relationship property (there is no scope note etc). Just about all the specialisations that we did in our early naive days of using CRM were deleted and are now used simply as vocabularies to type particular entities.
Hope this make sense. I suspect that the old wiki site should be removed from the Web. Cheers, D orcid.org/0000-0002-5539-3126 On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Merz, Dorian <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > > It would be pleasing to have a kind of P0_CRM_top_property or > PX_is_related_to as the "mother of all properties" in the CRM. This would > in no way interfere with the semantics of the other properties while > providing us with some ways to solve semingly trivial practical problems > like finding all CRM-Properties in an rdf or owl implementation or being > able to say that two objects/individuals/entities are in relation but we > don't know exactly how, etc. > Such property would resemble the owl-top-property but keep compatibility > with the CRM. Domain and Range should, of course, be E1 > I feel that this is not exactly the "is related to" property that was > discussed here earlier but probably it is still being worth discussion. > > kind regards, > Dorian > > > Dipl.-Inf. Dorian Merz > Univ. Erlangen-Nuernberg > Department Informatik > AG Digital Humanities > Konrad-Zuse-Str. 3-5 > 91052 ERLANGEN > > Raum 00.046 > Fon: +49 9131 85 29095 > Mail: dorian.merz AT fau.de > ------------------------------ > *Von:* Crm-sig [[email protected]]" im Auftrag von "martin [ > [email protected]] > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 22. September 2016 19:56 > *An:* Simon Spero > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Betreff:* Re: [Crm-sig] Associative relationship mapping > > 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 > >
