Issue 633: Inheritance of strong and weak shortcuts

Starting Date: 
Working Group: 

In the 55th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 48th FRBR/LRMoo SIG meeting, the SIG resolved to start an issue where to discus the inheritance in strong/weak shortcuts. 

P32 used general technique IsA P125, which itself stands as a shortcut for E7. P16: E70. P2: E55. There is no registered instance of a technique over which this is shortcutting. Is the subproperty still valid if there is no instance of technique? 

HW: For MD, WS, CEO and TV to fully flesh out.

Belval, December 2022


Post by Christian-Emil Ore

Dear all

This is interesting.

E7 Activity. P32 used general technique (was technique of): E55 Type

is declared to be a subproperty of 

E7 Activity. P125 used object of type (was type of object used in): E55 Type


The object in the label is somewhat misleading. 

"This property is a strong shortcut of the more fully developed path from E7 Activity through P16 used specific object, E70 Thing, P2 has type, to E55 Type"

So the object can be anything enduring  of cause also a symbolic object which make sense for P32.  So for P32 on may consider to replace P16 with a subproperty, say

E7 Activity. P33 used specific technique (was used by): E29 Design or Procedure 


Does this give meaning?  Opinions?




Post by Martin Doerr 

Dear Christian-Emil,

Indeed, I think this needs discussion. I'd rather think P125 is not superproperty, but P32 is subproperty of P2 has type.
Producing, e.g., a Benin bronze object with lost vax technique, or a traditional Greek window grid by forging and piercing iron rods, has no
specific intermediate. Isn't it?



Reference to Issues: