Hi Thanasi,
The proposal creates a consistent way of doing the 'type of' version of a
property that relates one particular to another particular.
So each individual property:
https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1
has its typed version like:
Following Athina's response and in relation to the question about the
extant properties, I guess the "type of type" can be replicated with
thesaurus related properties (e.g. P127 has broader term). I would
consider the instances of E55 Type slightly differently to normal
instances and not
Dear all,
Thanks Nicola, that makes sense. I wonder if it is worth talking about what
namespace the extensions have going forward. Taking CRMDig as an example.
It arose from a project within which FORTH was a major partner and is an
outcome of that work. It thus makes sense that it is registered
Dear George,
The namespace to be used should be the `xml:base` value in the RDF
document. Example:
```xml
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#;
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#; xml:lang="en"
xml:base="http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/CRMsci/;>
```
```xml
