Dear all,
The fact that our documentation systems document a direct relationship
between language/technique and person does not mean that a direct
relationship is needed in the CRM (we have many examples of direct
relationships in documentation systems which do not exist in the CRM,
e.g. "the
Dear all,
To be my own devils advocate:
There is another interpretation of P2 has type as "has former or current type”
analogously to the properties P49 has former or current keeper, P51 has former
or current owner, P55 has former or current location. In this way P2 has type
does not necessaril
Dear all,
Sticking to the question of documenting when we have information that
someone knew a language or had a skill in a technique, I reiterate that I
believe really need a new property and not to use p2 has type.
p2 has type is a good solution for classifying a kind of phenomena or for
specia
Dear all,
I agree with Christian-Emil, especially for the P2 has type property, as
a simple solution for the cases that we don't have enough information to
infer this capability or cases lacking temporal information - it reminds
me of the issue 277 and the example of the artist
Best,
Athina
Steve,
something for your breakfast tomorrow morning.
“Knowing” a language is not the same as “using” it. The case started from
documentation stating that somebody knows a language, but not reporting any
use, which is just potential but not necessarily actual. For example, I know
Latin pretty
