Dear All,
I would also suggest to deprecate them, if there is no community
actively using them. Alternatively, we may think of a general, efficient
mechanism to assert that a property is still valid? This may go into the
Situation discussion.
Best,
Martin
On 11/28/2022 2:58 PM, Detlev
Dear all,
I fully agree with Christian-Emil's observation that
> The current properties P50, P52 and P55 need external curation and
> also break the basic assumption that a CIDOC-CRM KB/database
> store accumulate history.
This is a point I had to raise over and over again in discussions
Dear all,
The question is: If an instance x of E4 Period took place at an instance y of
E53 place, can we conclude that x took place at all places containing y? This
was explicitly stated in CRMbase before the September meeting. The decission in
Rome was to reformulate this as
Therefore,
Dear all,
Wolfgang points to the fact that the 'current' properties is not defined in a
consistent way, which of course they should have been. The textual scope notes
says 'if and only if' which should be expressed as bidirectional implication, ⇔
(equivalence). Below I quite from an email
Kind reminder - ignore if you have already registered.
If you plan to attend the 55th CIDOC CRM & 48th FRBR/LRMoo SIG meeting
and you haven't filled out the registration forms below, please take a
moment to do so.
best,
E
+
Dear all,
See below for a digest of the forms
