Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

2019-10-21 Thread Martin Doerr
Dear Florian, All, It is not clear to me why people do not want to use E18 for Aggregates that are not intended to grow over time in the sense of a collection. The time, how long they are together, does not play a role. The question is only, if they are well defined and identified for some

Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

2019-10-21 Thread Robert Sanderson
Dear all, There were three issues that came up with E78 … the scope note being, I think, the least concern. 1. The scope note is very specific that the collection is assembled, maintained, curated, preserved over time for a specific purpose and audience according to some plan, and that

[Crm-sig] HW of ISSUE 357

2019-10-21 Thread Christian-Emil Smith Ore
​Dear all Here is the homework of ISSUE . Best, Christian-Emil The number of shortcuts has changed due to deprecation of properties and a few new. The eventual change of E4 isa E92 to a property etc, will result in 4 new shortcuts marked as red text below. One existing shortcut has to be

Re: [Crm-sig] Curated Holding vs Physical Thing as Aggregate vs Set

2019-10-21 Thread Florian Kräutli
Dear George, This is indeed a problem I too have encountered often. The scope note of E78 suggests a rather narrow definition of a collection, but there is no satisfactory alternative for modelling the type of collections you describe. However, instead of introducing another class and then