Dear all,
during the SIG meeting in Paris, we added the new property "P177
assigned property type" (see
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.6_Definition_esIP.pdf).
This property reuses the already given identifier of the property "P177
ends within" which has been deprecated without ever belonging to a
published version (see
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Property/p177-ends-within/version-6.2.2 and
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CIDOC%20-%20CRM_v6.2.6_%20Amendments.pdf)
We had a little discussion on whether or not to reuse this identifier
already given. Maybe I'm picky but I'm not really comfortable with this
practice. I suggest never to reuse an identifier for the following
non-exhaustive reasons:
* Even it's highly not recommended to use a draft version of CIDOC
CRM, an entity exists from the moment it appears on a public
document. It could then be potentially used by anyone. In a given
namespace, an identifier must have to be unique.
* For documentation reason, it's easier to have unique identifiers too
to avoid speaking of "the old P177" or "the new P177". For instance,
in the issue #345, how to know of which P177 property we are talking
about? Think "the new P177" could be deprecated too one day...:
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-345-properties-having-domain-or-range-deprecated-classes
* Numbers are infinite, we don't need to save them. ;-)
Best regards,
Vincent.
--
Vincent Alamercery
Pôle histoire numérique
@phn_larhra
LARHRA - UMR 5190
École normale supérieure de Lyon
15 parvis René Descartes
BP 7000
69342 Lyon cedex 07
France
Tel : +33 (0)4 37 37 60 73
[email protected]
http://larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/membre/54
http://symogih.org/
http://dataforhistory.org/
