I think there is some mix-up here between the issue at hand (issue 718) and
issue 720 (the Lewis Chessmen).
My starting point was a discussion with Martin about the identity of
Proposition Set and One-Proposition Set. As a byproduct of this (ongoing)
discussion I learned that {y P46i x} is regarded the same as {x P46 y}. The
CRMbase introduction says:
> In contrast to some knowledge representation languages, such as RDF and OWL,
> we regard that the inverse of a property is not a property in its own right
> that needs an explicit declaration of being inverse of another, but an
> interpretation implicitly existing for any property.
To illustrate this more clearly, I came up with the Lewis Chessmen example
(issue 720). It is fine to use the inverse label in an example (The “Antique
Walrus Tusk Warrior Chessman” forms part of the Lewis Chessmen). This is
standard practice, see e.g. the examples for P11 had participant (participated
in): Napoleon participated in The Battle of Waterloo, and The Beatles
participated in Harry Benson photographing the Beatles in Paris. But P140 and
P141 nevertheless encode the domain and range of the property, which in the
case of "P46 is composed of (forms part of)" is the direction from whole to
part (The Lewis Chessmen is composed of the “Antique Walrus Tusk Warrior
Chessman”), and not what one could call the "intuitive direction", which in the
case of the Lewis Chessmen would be from part to whole. After some comments on
the list I added some more explanation, and in my view the example is fine now.
Feel free to disagree, of course.
However, this is issue 718, which unfortunately has a label very similar to
issue 720. From early reactions to the Lewis Chessmen example I had the
impression that the passage in the introduction quoted above plus the new
examples are still not enough. It should also be explicitly stated in the scope
notes. So this issue is about amending the scope notes of E13 / P140 / P141 /
P177.
Best,
Wolfgang
> Am 02.03.2026 um 18:52 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
> <[email protected]>:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I agree and I'll try to formulate a repective not in the next days.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 3/2/2026 11:09 AM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> So it sounds like the practical consensus would be on either using the
>> example as originally proposed and putting the note or perhaps even doing it
>> the reverse direction (in the example) but again putting the same note. Like
>> if it says p46i in the example we can put a note, and this implies also p46
>> reading the other way or if it says P46 in the example then we can put the
>> inverse comment. Would that be a satisfactory solution to all?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 1:11 PM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> To avoid the complexity of querying for both directions in RDFS, during
>> the Linked Conservation Data project, all inverse properties were
>> automatically turned around. But I can see why this may be problematic
>> in some implementations.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Thanasis
>>
>> On 26/02/2026 09:33, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 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 <crm-
>> >> [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 list
>> >> [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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> [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
