Dear Francesco,
You have raised some interesting points which, I think, need discussion
(but after closing this issue 😃), including:
- what was the motivation of introducing property classes
- how can we tackle ambiguity of PCs (classes vs properties, etc etc)
- why not directly using the standard
Dear George,
I agree that often links with properties simplify a more complex entity.
There are complex questions of the philosophical distinction between
relationships and the entities that exist by their own. E-R model and
RDFS differ considerably in this respect. Regarding the question of
Hi Pavlos,
I definitely agree to keep following the PC modelling pattern at this
moment and your RDF description above looks correct to me.
My point was a theoretic one. The spirit should be to come to a conclusion
on this issue given current premises. My comments for posterity not the
present :)
Dear George,
About the PC constructs and, in general, if this is the best method to
implement CRM's properties of properties in RDF (considering Francesco's
email and arguments): I was not involved in the initial discussions, when
the SIG first introduced the idea of property classes for implement
Dear both,
I am more and more swayed by Francesco's argument that every PC property
class hides an actual ontological entity which we are failing to properly
model.
I think in principle what Pavlos proposes is syntactically correct and
insofar as we stay on PC here that is probably the way to go.
Dear Gerald, all,
I think we can follow the same reification approach as we do for the .1
properties.
In this case, we just need to provide the property classes of the domain
and range properties of AP13.2, i.e.:
PC_AP13_has_stratigraphic_relation_to
and
PC_AP11_has_physical_relation_to
T
