Dear all,

When using the PC classes modelling structure we end up with a class node
for a property which we can then modify with things like 'kinds' and
'modes' etc.

Since such a statement has meaning and comes from somewhere [e.g.: that
someone did something in some capacity (PC14 carried out by ... P02 has
range E39 + P14.1 in the role of E55)] one sometimes needs to provenance
this statement with an E13 attribute assignment. Ie we want to ground who
made this claim.

In theory this would be done with E13 pointing to the node in the typical
fashion (p141, P140). However, the class PC0_Typed_CRM_Property is not
declared as a subtype of E1 CRM Entity in the PC extension file. As a
result we cannot do this.

I would argue PC0_Typed_CRM_Property should be declared a subclass of
E1_CRM_Entity.  Then it would be consistent with the rest of the modelling.



Crm-sig mailing list

Reply via email to