Issue 632: Are there TPs among the CRM inverse properties?

Starting Date: 

In the 55th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 48th FRBR/LRMoo SIG meeting, the SIG resolved to start a new issue where to consider work from meta-CRM in the context of (N)TPs. 

HW: assigned to MD, TV


What motivated the issue: 

  • Whether the CRM inverse properties can be typed properties
    • TV reported that in principle there shouldn’t be any TPs in inverse paths, because inverse paths do not conform to the overall pattern (s → p → o) (o → p2 → t).
      • MD has done some relevant work (meta-CRM) in the past and thinks that there may be some still in the inverse properties. He is going to take up HW on that, together with TV. To be dealt with in a new issue (current). 

Belval, December 2022


Post by Martin Doerr 


Dear All,

I just checked that P101 is the TP of P16i, as I had presented this years ago. I had the impression at that time, that any TP has an associated inverse TP.
If we can present this idea, we could bring this forward.



Reference to Issues: