Dear Wolfgang,
My opinion to your questions:
Is it more precise to model the sum of periods as a timespan or a period
itsself?
It is more precise to model it as a period, in case this period has a
common unity criterion.
It is equally more precise to model it as a spacetime volume, but RDF
has no construct to describe that
an STV is exactly the sum of a set of components. The same holds for
periods.
How should a hiatus be expressed then? So the stopped and later on picked up
usage of the same object. As a second timespan / period attached to the
appearance of an object?
I think it needs a negative property. To be discussed with Carlo Meghini.
• Relation of Types and objects that refer to that type: Is it important
to have at least
one object for a “appears in” assignment to refer to.
Well, yes for capturing the argument. If the object is described, the
"appears in" could be inferred.
I think a "restricted to" would be a good property. It is more than the
sum of "appears in". It requires
an argument of having sufficiently dense observation at other times and
sites, or historical sources.
All the best,
Martin
On 6/1/2016 5:06 μμ, Wolfgang Schmidle wrote:
Co-author here. Yes, we use [2] as evidence for [1], and if new evidence is unearthed,
the "restricted" statement may turn out to be false.
The "closed world assumption" was only meant as an analogy. We do not argue that a "Restriction" statement in the sense
of a bounding box can be inferred from the given "appears in" and "typical for" statements. (Maybe one should also
distinguish between the knowledge of the archaeologist and the — possibly incomplete — list of actual "appears in" and
"typical for" statements.) Instead, it probably needs to be an explicit new statement, and the inferred statement in Figure 3
should probably have a different name that doesn't suggest anything but an inferred statement.
The point of the Restriction being a timespan rather than a period was, I think, that the
sum of periods may not automatically be a period itself. In particular, it may not be
identical to the "production of the Paukenfibel" period. However, in Figure 3
we assume that there is at least no temporal gap inbetween. And timespan means more or
less the same as spacetime volume here since the area in the example is always the same.
By the way, we have a similar problem in our gazetteer, where we need to
express the fact that a given region is part of the union of three other
regions.
Best,
Wolfgang
Am 06.01.2016 um 13:42 schrieb Øyvind Eide <lis...@oeide.no>:
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
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
