This would be version 1 with a better first sentence, and split up into two paragraphs. Just one thing: Transitivity plays no further role here, so if it is mentioned, perhaps reflexivity should be mentioned as well? As in Symmetric, transitive and reflexive properties have identical domain and range.
Best, Wolfgang > Am 28.10.2024 um 14:05 schrieb Stephen Stead via Crm-sig > <[email protected]>: > > This looks good to me > Stephen Stead > Mob: +44 (0)7802 755 013 > [email protected] > From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Christian-Emil > Smith Ore via Crm-sig > Sent: 28 October 2024 11:58 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] About the relationship between symmetry and > transitivity > It is clear that having the same domain and range is not a sufficient > condition for a property to be either symmetric or transitive as your example > with P152 has parent (is parent of) clearly demonstrates. Also "Properties > that have identical domain and range are either symmetric, asymmetric or > neither." covers all cases and is a tautology. Maybe it is better to > reformulate the paragraph to > > > "Symmetric and transitive properties have identical domain and range. > Instantiating a symmetric property implies that the same relation holds for > both the domain-to-range and the range-to-domain directions. An example of > this is E53 Place. P122 borders with: E53 Place. The names of symmetric > properties have no parenthetical form, because reading in the range-to-domain > direction is the same as the domain-to-range reading. > Properties with identical domain and range that are not symmetric, such as > E41 Appellation. P139 has alternative form (is alternative form of): E41 > Appellation, have a parenthetical form that relates to the meaning of the > inverse direction." > Best, > Christian-Emil > > > From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Schmidle, Wolfgang > via Crm-sig <[email protected]> > Sent: 26 October 2024 13:14 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Crm-sig] About the relationship between symmetry and transitivity > Dear All, > > Apologies if this has already been discussed: I would suggest to reformulate > a paragraph in the introduction of the CRMbase document about properties with > identical domain and range. See here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_3J5e6wscwNEQzPqpBfWBmoOiHoBmAx_o8_GWm7-6uc/edit > > Best, > Wolfgang > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
