Dear all, This was an interesting read. I have a question:
I do not understand the logic of the last paragraph in page 2. First they talk about [1] “a specific time period in which and only in which objects of a given type have been created” and then they go on to talk about [2] no finds from other periods. [2] is much weaker than [1] but is seems to me that [2] is still used as evidence for [1]. I do not argue that is wrong to use it as evidence (there are never proofs in heritage based research of this kind) but I fail to see how it can be seen as a closed world assumption — that is pretty strong. I think it is a good choice to model it as an implicit restriction, though; the modelling looks fine. It is more the use of “closed world” I wonder about. As for the choice between modelling of periods as timespans or periods I think this feeds well into the discussion we have on space-time modelling and this document will be useful for the discussions in Prato. Regards, Øyvind 28. des. 2015 kl. 19:53 skrev martin <mar...@ics.forth.gr>: > Dear All, > > I wish you all a Happy New Year! > > Please see this document to discuss properties of E55 Type > for archaeological reasoning: > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/E55-Type-Relations.pdf > > Best, > > martin > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | > | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | > | > Center for Cultural Informatics | > Information Systems Laboratory | > Institute of Computer Science | > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | > N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
