In the 61st joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 & 54th FRBR/LRMoo SIG, the group resolved to start a new issue as it was discussing the purported relation of E13 Attribute Assignment and P141 assgned (was assigned by) to E15 Identifier Assignment and P38 deassigned (was deassigned by), which had already been declared as non-standing at the 60th SIG meeting.
The motivation behind this proposal was that it may be the case for some instances of E41 Appellation that they are also instances of E42 Identifier (and thus have been assigned by an instance of E15 Identifier Assignment), but this does not apply to all instances of E41 Appellation.
The SIG did not vote on the proposal, because it was made during the meeting.
Heraklion, October 2025
Post by Wolfgang Schmidle (26 February 2025)
Dear All,
In my view, issue 715
is based on a misunderstanding about what the different ranges E41 Appellation of P1 and E42 Identifier of P37 mean for the shortcut. I think the shortcut is fine and issue 715 can be closed.
Best,
Wolfgang
At the 62nd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 & 55th FRBR/LRMoo SIG, the group approved the proposal to close the issue on the grounds that the premise for starting it.
The motivation for the issue was that it was erroneously assumed that (P1(x,y) ⇐ (∃z) [E15(z) ∧ P140i(x,z) ∧ P37(z,y)]) imposed stricter semantics to P1(x,y) –namely that its range be an instance of E42 Identifier. However, the description of the relation between P1 and the full path that it can shortcut over is not that "instantiating a P1, implies that an identifier has been assigned via an activity of identifier assignment”, but rather a normal shortcut interpretation: that the long path from E1. P140i: E15. P37: E42, can be shortcut by P1.
The problem is that the use of the inverse arrow for material implication was not understood to be read from right to left. And it seems that much of the confusion concerning the validity of the FOL statement (P1(x,y) ⇐ (∃z) [E15(z) ∧ P140i(x,z) ∧ P37(z,y)]) stems from that fact, namely that it was not understood as expressing a shortcut-full path relation, where the shortcut is implied by the full path.
Decision: approved.
Issue closed
Oxford, march 2026