Dear all,
I am a fan of the traditional solution:
1) E1 -> p1 -> E41
here the encoding all the way down to a value would be rdfs:value VALUE because
we want to track the actual string used to represent the name (separate from
the URI of the name)
We use this solution whenever we want to name
Dear all,
the main question for me is: Is the use of rdf:label in this case really
the intended way by the CIDOC CRM? In fact P1 currently has a valid range
and E41 is a valid class and not a primitive datatype. Why should we
substitute this?
I agree with Martin that we should integrate old data
Dear all,
I looked through the mailing list archive but could not find an answer for:
Why is F4 Manifestation Singleton a child of E24 and not a child of E22?
Its scope note starts with: "This class comprises physical objects..."
and we are always talking about a carrier. Are there any examples
