Dear Christian-Emil, All,
For the reasons I detailed in my other email, I totally agree with your
point of view and would like to raise all possible caveats to this kind
of mixing up quick and dirty implementation solutions and consistent
conceptual modelling.
If we need more classes, even on a provisional and experimental
perspective, I would strongly suggest to produce them and document them
as such, with stable URIs, and then refine progressively the ontology
and integrate it into the CRM family. Of course, a nice place to do this
is ontome.net đ
Best
Francesco
Le 08.05.23 à 17:36, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig a écrit :
Also: RDF(S) is an implementation technology. We can assume that there
exists a implmentation function from the CRM-FOL to RDF(S), but this
may not be a 1-1 function. Strange constructs like the PC0(?) may not
have counterparts in CRM-FOL. Changing the ontology on the bases of
special tricks used in the implementation may not always be a good
idea, but may inspire us to make well thought out and consistent
changes in the ontology.
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
