In case it wasn’t obvious, a definite YES from me ☺
Rob
From: Crm-sig on behalf of Martin Doerr
Date: Friday, April 5, 2019 at 9:06 AM
To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr"
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New issue: Missing inverse of P189 PLEASE VOTE
Dear All,
It's an oversight indeed!
PLEASE VOTE YES, if yo
Yes, sounds reasonable to me.
Thanasis
On 05/04/2019 17:06, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> It's an oversight indeed!
>
> PLEASE VOTE YES, if you agree with /P189 approximates (is approximated by)./
>
> Martin
>
> On 4/5/2019 6:51 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> In the 6.2.4
Dear All,
It's an oversight indeed!
PLEASE VOTE YES, if you agree with /P189 approximates (is approximated by)./
Martin
On 4/5/2019 6:51 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Dear all,
In the 6.2.4 PDF, there isn’t a definition of the inverse property of
P189 approximates. One would imagine P189i i
Dear all,
In the 6.2.4 PDF, there isn’t a definition of the inverse property of P189
approximates. One would imagine P189i is approximated by.
Given that the relationship has a direction (A approximates B), and in Geo this
would be between Declarative and Phenomenal Places, this seems like an
Dear all,
Regarding the decision to move (deprecate) the class S16 State (see
minutes from “The 42nd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and
ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 35th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting”)
,I believe that the range of the property O14 initializes should be
updated. An
