Dear Conal,
Got it! Yes, subproperties of P01/P02 create an additional constraint,
which obviously must hold. The reasoning that the PC class expands the
equivalent property can only be modeled by an OWL rule.
For practical data entry, this should be hidden to the user by a tool,
which
Dear Martin
I'm not sure what you meant by "partially declared subproperties" there (the
ambiguity of the term "subproperty" in this discussion doesn't help). I think
I understood the rest of what you were saying, though.
To be clear, all I was saying was that I would prefer not to publish RDF
Dear Conal,
There is no conflict with adding subproperties. Once we have defined in
FOL the logic of properties of properties, each PC class implies its
base property. Hence, logically, the subproperty and any added ".1" will
hold for the instances declared and imply the same base property.
Thanks Martin, for the link to
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CRMpc_v1.1_0.rdfs
This is actually very close to (and compatible with) the approach I
suggested in my earlier email, and I'm embarrassed to say I wasn't aware of
it at all.
I've managed to find some background material
Dear All,
Please
see:http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CRMpc_v1.1_0.rdfs on
page http://www.cidoc-crm.org/versions-of-the-cidoc-crm, plus the issues
discussing the solution for version 6.2 (I'll look for all references).
Best,
martin
On 3/14/2018 12:49 PM, Conal Tuohy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Conal Tuohy
List-Post: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:49:53 +1000
> We could then say that
> concert performance X was P14a_performed_in Performance Z; that Performance
> Z was P14b_carried_out_by person Y, and that Performance Z was
>
On 8 March 2018 at 18:02, Richard Light wrote:
> I was thinking last night that maybe we should focus our RDF efforts on
> exactly this issue: the representation of the CRM primitive classes E60,
> E61 and E62 in RDF. The current RDF document is becoming quite
> wide-ranging in its scope, and
