Dear George, all,
I am not sure that the class PC0_Typed_CRM_Property should be a
subclass of E1. In my understanding, this class implies a situation
concluded in an epistemological context. I am also not sure if the
provenance we are looking for in this set of statements is a kind of
E13. I am just wondering.
BRs,
Athina
On 2023-03-29 16:36, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
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.
https://cidoc-crm.org/rdfs/7.1.1/CIDOC_CRM_v7.1.1_PC.rdfs
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.
Opinions?
Best,
George
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
