My apologies to Phil! I found it but it was not quite as interpreted.
It comes from a document in 2012 and was a particular specialisation of a
database association code and not intended as a general relationship
property (there is no scope note etc). Just about all the specialisations
that we did
Dear All,
It would be pleasing to have a kind of P0_CRM_top_property or PX_is_related_to
as the "mother of all properties" in the CRM. This would in no way interfere
with the semantics of the other properties while providing us with some ways to
solve semingly trivial practical problems like fi
Hi Philip!
I very much like Stephen's suggestion of modelling generic relationships by
reifying subsets of the museum's database records as a set of E73
Information Objects each of which *P67 refers to* a set of "generically
related" objects. The nice thing about an "Information Object" is that th
This is intriguing.
I've never used the property, PX_is_related_to or PXX_is_related_to myself
and it isn't in any of my documentation. I have checked my BM mapping
manual (361 pages) and the only mention of "related to" is a BM production
association code for which the semantics have been ascerta
