Dear all,
A question completely unrelated to states, I promise ( E78 Collection is described as: “This class comprises aggregations of instances of E18 Physical Thing that are assembled and maintained …” And E19 Physical Object’s scope note says: “The class also includes *all* aggregates of objects made for functional purposes of *whatever kind*, …” (emphasis added) However E78 is not a descendant of E19 … they are both independent descendants of E18. So every E78 Collection must also be, explicitly, an E19 Physical Object? This seems like a bug in the class hierarchy? And regardless of the hierarchy, if there is a set of objects that are not “physically bound together or […] kept together for their functionality” (hence not E19), but do not have a “particular collection development plan” (hence not E78 either) … how should they be modeled? Examples include auction lots, the set of objects that are looked after by an art dealer (but without a development plan), and similar. Many thanks! Rob
