Yes, this would cause a fundamental break with how we manage relationships in Linked Art. There are fixed places at which Attribute Assignment can be used, thereby fixing which entity is the subject and which is the object, thereby sometimes requiring one direction, sometimes the other.
Also, you are misreading the OWL constructions. P46 and P46i are separate Object Properties with their own URIs. Otherwise there wouldn't be a subject/object distinction for the triple with the owl:inverseOf predicate. Rob On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 5:25 AM George Bruseker via Crm-sig < [email protected]> wrote: > Dear Martin, > > I think this is not a very reasonable ask. It kind of delegitimizes half > of the properties that are out there and used in practice all the time. > There could very well be reasons to begin from one subject and land to the > other such that you have to document that the inverse property was asserted > of something. This cannot be predicted from the ontology perspective, it is > the question of documenting the case (how the world is). It seems like this > should be left as a question to the implementer. The example seems > legitimate in either direction to me. > > Cheers, > George > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:48 AM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> May I correct Wolfgang's proposal. >> >> The issue is about formal encoding. RDFS distinguishes forward and >> backward directions as distinct properties. >> This had been amended in OWL with the construct inverse of. CIDOC CRM >> regards the backward direction as a question of label reading and not a >> ditinct identity. Therefore, P46i forms part of is *NOT* a different >> property type from P46 is composed of. If "P46i forms part of" would appear >> in a KB input in an E13 pattern, P140 and P141 should be turned around and >> P177 adjusted to P46 via input S/W. >> >> We had discussed this as a question of formal logic and identity of >> properties. >> >> Bet, >> >> Martin >> >> On 2/26/2026 10:37 AM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote: >> >> Dear Wolfgang, >> >> Why is this? I have not heard of it before. Is it written? >> >> Best, >> >> George >> >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 10:34 AM Schmidle, Wolfgang via Crm-sig < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Property types like "P46i forms part of" are not allowed in an Attribute >>> Assignment. Instead, it should be "P46 is composed of (forms part of)". >>> Since this isn't common knowledge, the E13 / P140 / P141 / P177 scope notes >>> should be amended to mention it. >>> >>> Best, >>> Wolfgang >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Crm-sig mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing >> [email protected]http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------ >> Dr. Martin Doerr >> >> Honorary Head of the >> Center for Cultural Informatics >> >> Information Systems Laboratory >> Institute of Computer Science >> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) >> >> N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, >> GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece >> >> Email: [email protected] >> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list >> > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list > -- Rob Sanderson Senior Director for Digital Cultural Heritage Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
