Post by Wolfgang Schmidle (26 February 2026)
Dear All,
P1 is identified by (identifies) is a shortcut for the path from E1 CRM Entity through P140i was attributed by (assigned attribute to), E15 Identifier Assignment, P37 assigned (was assigned by) to E42 Identifier. In FOL:
P1(x,y) ⇐ (∃z) [P140i(x,z) ∧ E15(z) ∧ P37(z,y)]
P1 has the range E41 Appellation but P37 has the stricter range E42 Identifier. Thus, the shortcut can be improved to:
P1(x,y) ∧ E42(y) ⇐ (∃z) [P140i(x,z) ∧ E15(z) ∧ P37(z,y)]
If something has an identifier, there must have been an Identifier Assignment event before. Thus, the other direction is also true. Taken together:
P1(x,y) ∧ E42(y) ⇔ (∃z) [P140i(x,z) ∧ E15(z) ∧ P37(z,y)]
In the P1 scope note it could be formulated as:
In the case that the associated appellation is an E42 Identifier, this property is a strong shortcut for the path from E1 CRM Entity through P140i was attributed by (assigned attribute to), E15 Identifier Assignment, P37 assigned (was assigned by) to E42 Identifier.
Best,
Wolfgang
Post by Wolfgang Schmidle (28 February 2026)
I stand corrected on the ⇒ direction. It is rare but not unheard of that a property implies an activity. In CRMbase we have "thing P101 had as general use", which implies that an activity must have taken place in which the thing in question had an essential role. But in the case of P1 the semantics of E42 Identifier doesn't guarantee that a corresponding E15 Identifier Assignment activity has taken place. In addition, a property shouldn't imply an attribute assignment (the superclass of identifier assignment) to avoid potentially endless recursions of who said what.
Best,
Wolfgang