Issue 653: hierarchical dependencies between extensions or through CRMbase?

In the 57th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 &50th FRBR/LRMoo SIG, the SIG resolved to start a new issue where to discuss whether hierarchical dependencies should be declared between extensions or between a given extension and the CIDOC CRM instead. 

For some context, see the definition of J2 concluded that in CRMinf. 

Secifically, based on the decisions concerning issue 469, in October 2020 J2 concluded that was declared a subproperty of P116 starts (is started by).  

Subsequently, P116 starts (is started by) moved to CRMarchaeo (in v2.0: it has been assigned the number ID AP24 starts (is started by)).

Among its superproperties feature

P175 starts before or with the start of (starts after or with the start of)

P175i starts after or with the start of (starts before or with the start of)

P185 ends before the end of (ends after the end of)

These properties also feature in the migration instructions for P116 (from 7.1.1 onwards I think, but definitely in v7.1.2)

We should not be listing both [AP24 starts] AND [P175, P175i, P185], given that the former is declared a subproperty of the latter set., but the SIG needs to determine which link to state for the superproperty of J2 concluded that. 

Marseille, October 2023.