Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

Dear Martin, Pavlos, All, I think these are definitely important questions that deserve more thorough discussion and consideration in future. Apart from the "technical" reification issue, I agree with you, Martin, that the "ontological or epistemic (reification!) of n-ary relations" is

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

Dear Francesco, All, I support this new issue. The discussion about the .1 properties had been very long, but the reasoning is, as for many solutions the CRM offers, widely lost. New methods arise, as the reification construct. I just want to remind, that the issue splits into a set of

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

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

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

Dear Pavlos, all reconsidering this question of the properties of properties and the proposed solution of the properties-classes remain some doubts and interrogations to me, in particular in relation with the best practices in the field of serialization of conceptual models in RDF. Metadata

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

Dear all, Please find my revised homework for issue 588 below: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1b0wW70xo2wjxNlWHYDRl7nr-fzYXTchN?usp=share_link Feel free to add your

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

Dear Mark, all, I agree, we need to make clear which constructs of the RDF are not part of CIDOC-CRM (especially since they make use of the same namespace). One way is to add a note in the beginning of the file. Another way would be to provide them through a different namespace (not sure if this

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

Dear all, nice work, thanks! I think for RDF this is a valid representation, although I am not very happy to add properties that are not in the cidoc crm directly and that are not part of the language itself (like in this case crm:P03_reifies). As a user/reader of the rdf it is simply hard to

[Crm-sig] ISSUE 588 Implementing the .1 Properties of Base and Extensions in RDF

Dear all, Please find my homework for issue 588 in the below link (as well as in the issues' folder):