As I remember, this problem was discussed in issues 229 and 307, which
are declared closed. However, I am wondering, if it is related to the
issue 293?
Athina
Στις 2020-09-09 17:26, Athanasios Velios έγραψε:
Good point, but it seems to me that being able to measure a Place is
pretty important. Otherwise we have to measure through the physical
object/site reference or the declarative space as part of a conceptual
thing.
Thanasis
On 09/09/2020 13:39, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Dear all,
I believe that there is an inconsistency in the model for measurements
and dimensions.
E54 Dimensions are associated directly with E70 Things using P43 has
dimension. So not every class can have dimensions, only those that
are descendents of E70.
However E16 Measurement's property P39 measured has a range of E1 CRM
Entity, meaning that while (for example) an E53 Place cannot have a
dimension, it can be measured to have a dimension. This seems
inconsistent that an entity that cannot have dimensions can still be
measured.
I propose that the range of P39 measured be changed to E70 Thing to
resolve this inconsistency.
I would also be okay with the other direction by changing the domain
of P43 has dimension to be E1 CRM Entity, however that seems like a
much more significant change, and would result in quite strange side
effects such as Dimensions having Dimensions.
Rob
-- Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
