scope notes P40 P43

In the 60th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 & 53rd FRBR/LRMoo SIG, the SIG reviewed MD’s proposal to update the definitions of P39 measured (was measured by), P40 observed dimension (was observed in), and P43 has dimension (is dimension of).

A summary of decisions can be found below: 

P39 is accepted as proposed, following some minimal wordsmithing. 

P43: 

• The scope note is accepted as proposed, following some minimal wordsmithing.
• The property quantifiers were approved too.
• The exclusion statements and the deductions need to be rethought. The SIG believes that deduction axioms are redundant, so would need more convincing to agree to add them in. And there is no agreement on the utility of the exclusion axioms either. 

P40: 

• The scope note is accepted provisionally, following some minimal wordsmithing.
• The property quantifiers were approved too.
• The exclusion statements and the deductions need to be rethought. The SIG believes that deduction axioms are redundant, so would need more convincing to agree to add them in. And there is no agreement on the utility of the exclusion axioms either.

HW: MD, CEO, WS to rethink the FOL axioms for P40, P39

The details of the reformulations and the points raised during the discussion can be found in the attached document.

Bern, April 2025

Post by Eleni Tsouloucha (16 March 2026)

Dear all,

Please take a moment to review Wolfgang's HW on issue 681
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10ok7YykspGNCWBaq06PYBEYSYgI29csC7MzOrASr6bw/edit?usp=sharing 

It's about the exclusion statements for P40, P39 
The HW will be discussed on Monday 23 March (Session 1.3).

All the best, 

Post by Martin Doerr (16 March 2026)

Dear Wolfgang,

I am happy with all, except for at O39:

P40(x,y) ⇔ O39(x,y) ∧ E16(x) ∧ ¬S25(y)
P40(x,y) ⇔ O39(x,y) ∧ E16(x)

I believe the second line should be deleted, isn't it?

Cheers,

Martin