Re: [Crm-sig] [NEW ISSUE]: missing inverse labels P81, P82, P171, P172

Dear All, I'd like to explain: The missing inverse label is not a statement that "the inverse property is not defined". The position of the CRM, based on FOL is that "inverse properties" are an artefact of RDF encoding. All properties are bidirectional, and per default directed. So, "we should

Re: [Crm-sig] [NEW ISSUE]: missing inverse labels P81, P82, P171, P172

Dear Eleni, I'd suggest not to assign inverse labels, nevertheless. These primitive values do not constitute particular objects of discourse, albeit that there is a naming aspect. P170, P168, P169 are different, they are epistemic constructs. Anyway, to be discussed! Best, Martin On 2/8/

[Crm-sig] [NEW ISSUE]: missing inverse labels P81, P82, P171, P172

Dear all, Since we made E61 isA E59 AND E41, it means that there can be inverse properties for *P81 ongoing throughout* & *P82 at some time within*. Which is implicit in the FOL for *P170 defines time (time is defined by) --*see v7.1.2 (Offic