Dear all,
In addition to the HW being prepared for 657 to reformulate the scope
note for P32, I am proposing a new example to replace the fictitious one:
The endbanding of codex S.Ar.20 (E11) used general technique
blanket-stitch-with-core as primary component (E55). (Boudalis, 2023)
Works
In version 7.2.3 (if I have the correct file in front of me) we have
already added the following:
"This property is a part of the fully developed path from E93 Presence
through P161 has spatial projection, E53 Place, P89 falls within
(contains) to E53 Place."
This is the path from E93
Dear all,
Has anyone done a review or mapping to/from the nomisma.org ontology?
Any thoughts to share?
All the best,
Thanasis
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Dear all, Martin,
Looking for things without certain types of features is indeed very
useful. NTP46 and NTP56 are meant to do exactly that (if you have the
time check
Dear all,
Just following up with this discussion following Eleni's reminders for
HW. I think we have relaxed into the pattern of two hybrid meetings per
year, which is a reasonable compromise while there are still regular
participants who can cover their travel expenses.
From the discussion
Dear all,
I am forwarding an email from Steve to the list. For some reason his
original email did not make it through.
All the best,
Thanasis
-
Here is the proposed text for the frame of reference for Extension
Working Groups
Dear George, all,
This is a lot of work, so thank you. Looking forward to discussing this,
I am sending a list of things to check as I browse through them:
* Some labels have underscores, others do not - I prefer without given
that we never use underscores in the main document
* I am not
I think the meaning of a library flooding is that the books get wet. We
can model to a microscopic scale if the situation requires, but this is
not necessary for this example I think. In the case of the wildfire, it
could be both, i.e. both triggered and also part of it, but we cannot
assume
Dear all,
Many thanks to those of you who voted for the CRMsci examples in the
last e-vote which will be added to the document.
In the process of discussing these examples with several of you, there
was a strong view that the current label of S23 Position Measurement is
confusing. I
Dear all,
Many thanks to those who voted for the CRMsci examples. Also, many
thanks to Wolfgang who has flagged several inaccuracies with the Titanic
examples, done deeper research and has provided further clarity.
Following his review, Athina and I thought it is appropriate to send
another
Dear all,
Happy New Year! Please consider the following for an e-vote. This are
the pending examples for CRMsci:
*Example for S15 Observable Entity:*
*
the flight of a male Bearded Vulture observed over Heraklion, Crete
in the morning of the 24^th of October 2020 (E5) (Claes, 2020)
Indeed and the original questions raised were about the phrase in the
introduction "The association of the two events is based on their
temporal proximity, i.e. the triggering event ends when the triggered
event starts." I think the examples mentioned in the scope note indicate
a temporal
Dear all,
Just to remind you that there is some documentation for
E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation in the RDFS implementation guidelines
document:
https://cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/issue%20443%20-%20Implementing%20CIDOC%20CRM%20in%20RDF%20v1.1.pdf
in the section "Language of an
Thank you both. I am assuming that Wolfgang's formulation is a shorter
equivalent to Christian-Emil's. I will add it to the draft.
Thanasis
On 08/12/2022 15:31, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote:
I would write it like this:
O15(x,y) ⇒ S10(x)
O15(x,y) ⇒ E53(y)
O15(x,y) ∧ E18(x) ⇔ P156(x,y)
Thank you for this analysis Martin. I would argue that this is for issue
610 - I have included it in the working document for that issue to discuss.
All the best,
Thanasis
On 22/11/2022 17:43, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear All,
"In the 54th CIDOC CRM & 47th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting,
Dear all,
In issue 388
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-388-reference-to-the-measurements-of-position-of-things)
we agreed the properties for position measurement. This issue 611
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-611-scope-notes-for-the-properties-of-position-measurement)
is about creating
Dear all,
Athina, Gerald, Martin and I have put together the homework for issue
612. Proposing the following text to be added between the Observation
section and the Inference making section at the CRMsci introduction:
Measuring positions
A specialisation of the class S4 Observation is the
The section on Minimality outlines when new classes are declared and it
includes:
"It serves as a merging point of two CIDOC CRM class branches via
multiple IsA (e.g., E25 Human-Made Feature). When the branch
superclasses are used for multiple instantiation of an item, this item
is in the
y
cross dataset query would require checking that the orders are in the
same direction, which is not ideal. Ideally the thesauri where these
types come from should also specify their order.
All the best,
Thanasis
Best,
Martin
On 10/28/2022 7:59 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
Is t
YES
On 01/11/2022 09:53, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
I propose the deletion of the following classes of CRMdig. The reason
that each should be deleted is listed beside it, but there are two
basic, principled reasons for the proposal:
1) the class can be modelled using a
YES
On 01/11/2022 09:48, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
I propose the deletion of the following properties of CRMdig. The reason
that each should be deleted is listed beside it, but there are two
basic, principled reasons for the proposal:
1) the property can be modelled
Dear all,
Athina and I are making some progress with version 2.0 of CRMsci and we
have identified some inconsistencies with property labels in the past
and present tenses. Typically, the labels are in the present tense and
the examples using the properties are in the past tense.
These are:
Is this relevant:
https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-407-ordinal-property-for-e55-type
It is a draft property in CRMsci:
"O28 is conceptually greater than (is conceptually less than)"
All the best,
Thanasis
On 06/10/2022 14:24, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote:
To add: Thinking of it again,
Just for easy future reference the white paper that Martin mentioned is
here:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/17171936.pdf
T.
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
I think this sounds right and consistent with the CRM introduction:
"the subproperty inherits the definition of all of the properties
declared for its superproperty without exceptions (strict inheritance),
in addition to having none, one or more properties of its own."
Thanasis
On
Dear all,
Issue 602
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-602-determine-the-interface-btw-crmsci-and-crminf)
is to consider whether class S5/I5 Inference Making should be in CRMsci
or CRMinf. Following some discussion in the HW group for this issue, the
proposal is that:
* I5/S5 Inference Making
Dear all,
As part of the homework for issue 600
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-600-classproperty-labels-are-not-definitions)
on the role of labels of classes and properties, Erin and I drafted the
following text to be added at the end of the "Naming Conventions" section.
"The nominal
Dear all,
This is for CRMact. Martin and I have reformulated the scope notes of
actP21 and actP22 to include contained places and time spans as the HW
dictated.
*Old scope note for actP21*
This property associates an instance of actE4 Event Template with the
instance of E53 Place which is
Following this, I am also making a few recommendations on possible
vocabularies based on my previous HW:
* E4: type of period → do not make recommendation
* E10: type of transfer of custody
* legal responsibility → possible AAT term
[ownership](http://vocab.getty.edu/page/aat/300055603)
Dear all,
I am reading through the discussion on issue 588
(https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-588-common-policy-method-for-implementing-the-.1-properties-of-base-and-extensions-in-rdf)
and looking forward to Pavlos's HW.
I was thinking that we should connect in the graph the property with its
Dear all,
I was thinking that we can connect the example for Observable Situation
with the example about flooding from CRMact for which their a draft
property to connect to situation. So the proposed example is:
* the depth of the river Thames being 10 meters [i.e. about to overflow
at
Dear all,
Please find attached the version of CRMact which is submitted here for
approval at the next SIG. Scope notes have been agreed already but
please check the introductory text and bring comments to the meeting.
Many thanks to Vincent for the OntoMe support which made this work
easier
art looses its identity
within the whole it augmented (and then be a destruction event??) may
probably be too exotic (Frodo's Ring not withstanding).
All the best,
Martin
On 1/25/2022 3:20 PM, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
It turns out that we might also need to worry about P1
ion.
All the best,
Thanasis
On 13/12/2021 09:58, Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig wrote:
In which case I suppose the proposal to discuss at the next SIG is:
1) change the range of P112 from E24 Physical Human-Made Thing to E18
Physical Thing
2) fix the reference to the property under the scope
Dear all,
The preparation of version 7 largely coincided with the disruption
caused by COVID-19 which saw the CRM-SIG meetings moving online. In
order to prepare for the online meetings and organise the work of the
SIG an ad-hoc group was formed consisting of the chairs of the CIDOC-CRM
SIG,
In which case, can I suggest the following change to the scope note:
Old scope note:
This property describes the active participation of an instance of E39
Actor in an instance of E7 Activity. It implies causal or legal
responsibility. The P14.1 in the role of property of the property
Forgive me George for bringing up my original comment - it is entirely
possible that I have not understood the problem.
It seems to me that what is really missing is the connection between the
event and the outcome. It seems that you are saying that it is a causal
connection. Shortcutting
appens with the extant 'type of'
properties? I assume there isn't any has general purpose of type
property... or is there?
Cheers
G
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 9:20 PM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
Hi George, all,
As part of Linked Conservation Data (
Hi George, all,
As part of Linked Conservation Data (and with the help of Carlo, Martin
and Steve) we proposed the idea of Typed Properties which derive from
current CRM properties and always have E55 Type as range.
E.g. "bears feature" → "bears feature of type" so that one can describe
the
discussion about how to remove
fragments from meteorites, so I hope that's _not_ the case :D
R
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:59 PM Athanasios Velios
wrote:
I completely understand the reasoning and I agree that intuitively a
tree with a broken branch is a diminished thing.
.
R
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 3:45 AM Athanasios Velios
mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>> wrote:
Hm, I do not consider it as a value statement, but as indication of the
intension. Breaking a tree branch which is worth putting in your
collection is a production of a Human-Made
cted area would have to
be removed from the E78. So I think I even retract "you can't remove
features" given the physicality of E78.
Rob
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 2:05 PM Athanasios Velios
mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>> wrote:
Yes this is a logical position.
Physical Human-Made Thing, but not an E19 Physical Object. If we use
E78 to model sub-collections, and sub-collections can be removed from
their parent, then yes, here is a case where we need E18.
Rob
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 11:22 AM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Hm, yes, this is confusing. We might need a new issue to update the
scope note. I think the correct class is E24 as it seems that E80 Part
Removal does not cover cases such as cutting a stalactite off in a cave.
Thanasis
On 29/11/2021 15:41, Erin Canning via Crm-sig wrote:
Hello,
I am
YES
On 27/11/2021 20:21, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear All,
It is a great pleasure and honor for us to announce that the Palace
Museum in Beijing applies for CRM-SIG membership.
I have received the following request from the Museum:
"The Palace Museum would like to apply for the
Dear all,
What is the current practice for modelling online events such as the SIG
meetings on zoom or speaking to someone on the phone. The phenomena are
coherent in that there is meaningful interaction with/through devices as
a result of the discussion. Do people consider the event simply
I think this would be a useful discussion and class. It has also been
proposed within the PARCOURS model although perhaps a tighter proposal
can be made.
Thanasis
P.S. The example for P103 could do with updating...
On 01/09/2021 20:47, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
Hi George,
I think
I agree with this. Shouldn't it be part of the RDF implementation document?
Thanasis
On 20/07/2021 15:37, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:
Wholehearted agreement. Even if they're expressed in different ways by
different representations of the conceptual model, if we can standardize
the
w to enter the full reference. As a
footnote/endnote? If no full reference is provided, the citation is
meaningless...
Best regards
Maja
*Od:* Crm-sig v imenu Athanasios Velios
via Crm-sig
*Poslano:* petek, 18. junij 2021
Dear all,
This issue is about agreeing a template based on which the
specification documents of CRM family models will be produced. The
working document for this issue is here:
Dear all,
This issue is about agreeing a rationale and a template based on
which CRMbase and CRM extension examples will be produced. The
working document for this issue is here:
Maybe we have failed to document the issue in its development but my
understanding was that we were looking for use cases from sound arts
where a sound piece with distinct identity (for example) has been used
as part of another sound piece. The integration would have been required
to identify
I have created a quick drawing which I think captures the proposed
changes if people find it easier instead of the text (I do :-) ). I
think the proposed changes seem reasonable and also help tidying up the
property hierarchy.
drawio:
Dear all,
My homework for this issue was to check for cases of integration for
sound in sound arts. I spoke with a professor of sound art in UAL and
from the examples we discussed it appears that there are very few
collections systematically cataloguing sound art and they hardly
document
Dear all,
With Martin's contribution I am sending the updated homework for the
example templates. You can find it here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YtZBSx5ZCOQ5ntFUf34TY-_aeR4OIrJY/view?usp=sharing
and here:
Dear all,
To follow up with this, and with the usual apologies for potentially
misunderstanding the objective of the issue, I have done a quick scan of
the CRM document to identify where these recommendations for types are
done. Some are rather implicit but may be worth considering:
* E4:
Dear all,
During discussions on the future of activity plans it appears that we
have 3 options:
1) Activity plans to remain as part of CRMsoc. This makes sense since
obeying laws and receiving penalties take place in societies and such
things appear to match the model for activity plans.
Dear all,
At the last session of the last CRM SIG meeting we discussed issue 511
and voted to accept the reduction of the range of property P39 measured
from E1 CRM Entity to E18 Physical Thing. Homework was assigned to check
how scope notes and related properties are affected, recommend
rescriptive.
I would include the topic, as to make clear the diversity in
implementation (use of terminological systems as well as the use of the
concept of controlled terminology itself), avoiding indeed the
prescriptive stance.
Best,
Nicola
P.s. Great initiative :-)
On 8 Mar 2021, at 21:
t;https://lincsproject.ca/>
*From:* Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios
Velios via Crm-sig
*Sent:* March 8, 2021 12:52 PM
*To:* crm-sig
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Issue:530 Bias in the CRM
EXTERNAL EMAIL:
Fantastic! Thank you for sharing and you are first in the
mer. 3 mars 2021 à 14:58, Athanasios Velios <mailto:thana...@softicon.co.uk>> a écrit :
Dear all,
In version 7.1 a short but important sentence has been added at the end
of the scope section:
"Discussions on the types of bias present in the CIDOC CRM are in
progr
Dear all,
In version 7.1 a short but important sentence has been added at the end
of the scope section:
"Discussions on the types of bias present in the CIDOC CRM are in
progress within the CIDOC CRM community."
Issue 530 is used to track the discussions here:
Dear all,
During the last SIG I was asked to reformulate some homework around
splitting samples for CRMsci. This included creating a new class and two
new properties (one of them from the revised homework). Please find this
new homework attached here.
All the best,
Thanasis
Dear all,
As part of the homework for issue 516 I was meant to look for the
reference for the example about the National Gallery under E10 Transfer
of Custody and associated proprties. Joe Padfield has kindly done some
detective work on the example but there is no proper reference for it.
iews will be held online via Microsoft Teams.
Further details: https://www.ligatus.org.uk/node/810
Application: https://www.arts.ac.uk/research/phd-and-mphil-degrees
For questions please contact Dr Athanasios Velios: a.vel...@arts.a
Dear all,
Some HW for issue 503 to be discussed next week. This was to produce new
examples for E13 Attribute Assignment. After discussion with Martin, it
looks like some of them are better suited for E14 Condition Assessment.
All the best,
Thanasis
E13 Attribute Assignment
*
the
Good point, but it seems to me that being able to measure a Place is
pretty important. Otherwise we have to measure through the physical
object/site reference or the declarative space as part of a conceptual
thing.
Thanasis
On 09/09/2020 13:39, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Dear all,
I
Dear all,
I have made a few changes to the examples template based on the
discussions from the last meeting. There are still a couple of pending
issues but I think we should discuss those at the end of the meeting
tomorrow if there is time:
* use of quotes
* use of conjunctions in examples
Dear all,
Please see the link to a new post for working with the Linked
Conservation Data project, hopefully employing all the good work that
has come out of the SIG and relevant projects.
Dear all,
In the last SIG meeting I was asked to propose a revision to P126 in
order to broaden its scope from E11 Modification to E7 Activity. The
rationale for this is that there are activities which employ materials
and which do not result in a modification. For example in this paper
from
Dear all,
In the last meeting I was asked to revise the scope note for O27 split
and provide a more specific example for it. Please consider these:
Old scope note
This property associates an instance of S2 Sample Taking with an
instance of S13 Sample that was removed during this activity.
Dear all, Steve,
In the last meeting I was asked to provide an example for I11 Situation
from the domain of conservation. I am proposing this one:
"The persistence of the value of the pH (E55) for sample XIV (S13)
during the period of the pH measurement (E52), which followed after one
month
Apologies, I misread the labels.
YES, without a comment.
T.
On 03/02/2020 09:35, Athanasios Velios wrote:
YES, but I would remove the work "obviously" from the last sentence.
Thanasis
On 31/01/2020 12:46, Bekiari Xrysoula wrote:
Dear All,
Following the decisions of the last sig,
YES, but I would remove the work "obviously" from the last sentence.
Thanasis
On 31/01/2020 12:46, Bekiari Xrysoula wrote:
Dear All,
Following the decisions of the last sig, we invite you to vote if you
accept the updated scope note of P2 has type . The old and the new
scope notes follow:
Yes, if we have different URIs for each version of E5 Event, then this
will complicate matters during implementation in local systems. If one
wants to work out the difference in reasoning rules across the versions
then they would need to refer to the whole document not each individual
class.
Hello,
During the discussions at the Linked Conservation Data consortium a
question has come up:
I have a metal sculpture on the seafront which is battered by the sea
for decades. The production of the corrosion layer is a S17 Physical
Genesis. In conservation documentation I would like to
My underlying assumption would be that the default thing served up would
be html, but you could reach the other representation consistently
through adding an appropriate ending or whatever would be most
suitable... but that people looking at the html should have a shiny red
button type clue
For the appearance/presentation of the whole ontology, it is an html
representation of the main document that we create. This seems fine.
Would it be useful to be able to provide links explicitly at the top of
this document to click over to encodings? This way somehow we can better
consolidate
I agree with Detlev's proposal. Also, I believe that versions should not
be included in the class URIs. These are not normally used to retrieve
reasoning rules but only to identify classes, right? Resolving the class
URI should return all versions of the class.
All the best,
Thanasis
On
I vote YES as well.
Thanasis
On 12/01/2020 10:13, Martin Doerr wrote:
Dear All,
If you agree that
"the following Allen's temporal relations should be deprecated in the
CRMbase and reappear in CRMarcheo:
P114 is equal in time to
P115 finishes (is finished by)
P116 starts (is started by)
Dear all,
Following the Linked Conservation Data workshop and the last SIG in
Crete I am summarising the problem of documenting non-existence.
An example of non-existence is: a book cover (a particular) without
tooled decoration (a type).
Options for encoding:
1) As discussed here:
What Martin describes was my understanding as well at the Linked.Art
meeting. In response to Rob's notes:
I think that indeed we have the "lot (object)" which is a physical thing
that is sold and "lot (record)" which is a document talking about the
"lot (object)". Writing about a physical
Dear all,
I spent a bit of time putting together some scope notes and examples for
the Trigger Event Template properties (also attached as a document with
an updated diagram). I forwarded these to Stephen only last week so he
had not had a chance to review them, but maybe we can do that at
Hello,
Most of this is for Francesco and Vincent, but I had a small part of the
homework which was to add a sentence to the introductory text to clarify
that CRMsoc is under development. So here is the text again with the
added sentence in the end:
This is to provide an example from conservation of the use of CRMsci
property Oxx split [D:S2 Sample Taking, R:S13 Sample]:
---
The activity (S2 Sample Taking) of removing fibers from the sample (S13
Sample) of Japanese Kozo hand-made paper [with dimensions
Hello Pierre,
Isn't "S19 Encounter Event" from CRMsci what you are talking about? And
then use the properties "O19 has found object" and "O21 has found at".
O21 can be used for the location of the whale and P7 for the location of
the lighthouse, no?
All the best,
Thanasis
On 16/10/2019
hotograph’s production
used_object_of_type ?
Rob
*From: *Crm-sig on behalf of
Athanasios Velios
*Reply-To: *"thana...@softicon.co.uk"
*Date: *Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM
*To: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr"
*Subject: *[Crm-sig] Broaden scope of P125
Hello,
Conservators use
f_type ?
Rob
*From: *Crm-sig on behalf of
Athanasios Velios
*Reply-To: *"thana...@softicon.co.uk"
*Date: *Wednesday, October 9, 2019 at 3:07 PM
*To: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr"
*Subject: *[Crm-sig] Broaden scope of P125
Hello,
Conservators use a range of materials
Hello,
Conservators use a range of materials for their treatments. The
treatments can be modelled as "E7 Activity" and the "P125 used object of
type" describes things used during the activity. The scope note only
refers to objects (i.e. solid human-made things). It would be useful if
the
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.
Dear Maria,
I think the complexity is from the fact that Language in the CRM is
modelled as a Type, i.e. to be used for classifying things.
How about creating an E7 Activity to describe learning a language and
then use P16 used specific object → E56 Language?
Or create a separate authority
I think "O9 observed property type" could be defined as a sub-property
of "P177 assigned property type". I do not think it should be removed,
it may be useful for searching.
Also, I have noticed that in version 6.2.6, under "P2 has type", the
"P177 assigned property type" is not listed as a
Dear all,
Following discussions with Martin I am sending some homework about the
specification of events with which the activity plans are concerned, and
also a revision of the Activity Plan scope note. Also attached.
-
socExx Event
in
the next sections.
All the best,
Thanasis
--
Dr. Athanasios Velios
Reader in Documentation
Ligatus
University of the Arts London
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may
contain confidential
Substantial that the sample was taken from.
This property should be used to model cases when a homogenous sample is
split into multiple ones.
All the best,
Thanasis
--
Dr. Athanasios Velios
Reader in Documentation
Ligatus
University
YES
Dr. Athanasios Velios
Reader in Documentation
Ligatus
University of the Arts London
On 24/04/2019 22:11, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear All
>
> The proposal is to replace in all CRM labels "Man-Made" by "Human-Made"
>
> Please vote "YES" if you agre
I support the change of the English labels to:
E22 Made Object
E25 Made Feature
E71 Made Thing
And I think this can be proposed as an issue to be voted through the SIG
list.
All the best,
Thanasis
On 12/04/2019 05:38, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the Linked Art
YES
T.
On 10/04/2019 20:12, Martin Doerr wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> The current scope not of E34 include a reference to the deprecated E84:
>
> *OLD*
>
>
> E34 Inscription
>
> Subclass of: E33 <#_E33_Linguistic_Object> Linguistic Object
>
> E37 <#_E37_Mark>Mark
>
> Scope note:This class
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
A couple of comments from me:
>> 1) which E2 is not an E4, even in a broad sense?
I think the question here are whether "E3 Condition State" is the same
as "E4 Period" and if "P5 and P9 consists of" are similar transitive
properties. From a conservation point of view I was never comfortable
with
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
