Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo Typos

2018-11-07 Thread Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
?Dear all,

Thank you for the response.

1) Based on my theoretical knowlegde of archaeological excavations, I was 
surprised and somewhat confused when I saw that a find could have these 
physical relations in the actual template.  So your answers and also  CRMarcheo 
are consistent with my view.

2) I discussed the issue with 3 of the archaeologist working in the project 
today. It turned out that according to their knowledge  these physical 
relations in the template between finds was not used at all. It is an example 
of a template inherited from somebody else (Swedes?) and poorly maintained. As 
we all know it is easier to add classes and properties than deleting them.


Best,

Christian-Emil




From: Achille Felicetti 
Sent: 06 November 2018 23:53
To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore
Cc: crm-sig; van Leusen, P.M.
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo Typos

Dear Christian-Emil,

I tend to agree with Martin and Martijn.

Although the semantic boundaries between finds and layers could in some cases 
be ambiguous and in some ways undecidable, there is usually a clear distinction 
(operated by archaeologists) between the object and the stratigraphic unit in 
which the object itself is embedded. Talking about physical objects/material 
things incorporated or embedded within one or more stratum/a is, in my opinion, 
a better and more clear way to render the scenario you describe.

Therefore, I would go for AP18 + A7 or AP15 + S10 in CRMarchaeo.

Bests,
Achille

Il giorno 6 nov 2018, alle ore 23:18, van Leusen, P.M. 
mailto:p.m.van.leu...@rug.nl>> ha scritto:

Hi christian-emil,
No, a find should not normally be modeled as a stratigraphic unit, because the 
latter is intended to represent chronologically separable processes such as 
cutting and filling. In most cases the embedded objects are deposited together 
with soil as a single bulk deposit, so do not represent an A8 by themselves.
However, examples can be constructed where the deposition of a single object is 
distinguishable as an event separate from any preceding and subsequent 
stratigraphic units - think of an urn being deposited in a cremation grave - 
where the use of A8 would be defensible.
Hope this helps,
Martijn

On Nov 6, 2018 19:05, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore" 
mailto:c.e.s@iln.uio.no>> wrote:

Sorry for the typos and generally confusing text. Here is a hopefully  a better 
text:


AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)
Domain: A8 Stratigraphic Unit
Range: A8 Stratigraphic Unit

My issue was about finds as objects. That, how do one model physical relations 
between finds (and also modern objects like the pipe). Can a find be both an 
object and an A8 Stratigraphic Unit?? Double instanciation? The find being an 
instance of  A8 Stratigraphic Unit? as long as it is not moved?

Best
Christian-Emil







From: Crm-sig 
mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf 
of Christian-Emil Smith Ore mailto:c.e.s@iln.uio.no>>
Sent: 06 November 2018 16:19
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo


Dear all,

I am working on a mapping from Norwegian excavation databases to CRM/CRMarcheo. 
The sets use relations like over/under between layers and other A8 
Stratigraphic  Units.  A question: Can a find be modeled as an instance of A11 
and what about a modern drainage pipe/ditch?


Best,

Christian-Emil

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo Typos

2018-11-07 Thread Achille Felicetti 
Dear Christian-Emil,

I tend to agree with Martin and Martijn.

Although the semantic boundaries between finds and layers could in some cases 
be ambiguous and in some ways undecidable, there is usually a clear distinction 
(operated by archaeologists) between the object and the stratigraphic unit in 
which the object itself is embedded. Talking about physical objects/material 
things incorporated or embedded within one or more stratum/a is, in my opinion, 
a better and more clear way to render the scenario you describe.

Therefore, I would go for AP18 + A7 or AP15 + S10 in CRMarchaeo.

Bests,
Achille

> Il giorno 6 nov 2018, alle ore 23:18, van Leusen, P.M. 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Hi christian-emil,
> No, a find should not normally be modeled as a stratigraphic unit, because 
> the latter is intended to represent chronologically separable processes such 
> as cutting and filling. In most cases the embedded objects are deposited 
> together with soil as a single bulk deposit, so do not represent an A8 by 
> themselves.
> However, examples can be constructed where the deposition of a single object 
> is distinguishable as an event separate from any preceding and subsequent 
> stratigraphic units - think of an urn being deposited in a cremation grave - 
> where the use of A8 would be defensible.
> Hope this helps,
> Martijn
> 
> On Nov 6, 2018 19:05, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore"  > wrote:
> Sorry for the typos and generally confusing text. Here is a hopefully  a 
> better text:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)
> Domain:
> A8 Stratigraphic Unit
> Range: A8 Stratigraphic Unit
> 
> My issue was about finds as objects. That, how do one model physical 
> relations between finds (and also modern objects like the pipe). Can a find 
> be both an object and an A8 Stratigraphic Unit​? Double instanciation? The 
> find being an instance of  A8 Stratigraphic Unit​ as long as it is not moved?
> 
> Best
> Christian-Emil
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Crm-sig  > on behalf of Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
> mailto:c.e.s@iln.uio.no>>
> Sent: 06 November 2018 16:19
> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr 
> Subject: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo
>  
> Dear all,
> 
> I am working on a mapping from Norwegian excavation databases to 
> CRM/CRMarcheo. The sets use relations like over/under between layers and 
> other A8 Stratigraphic  Units.  A question: Can a find be modeled as an 
> instance of A11 and what about a modern drainage pipe/ditch? 
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Christian-Emil
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo Typos

2018-11-07 Thread van Leusen, P.M. 
Hi christian-emil,
No, a find should not normally be modeled as a stratigraphic unit, because
the latter is intended to represent chronologically separable processes
such as cutting and filling. In most cases the embedded objects are
deposited together with soil as a single bulk deposit, so do not represent
an A8 by themselves.
However, examples can be constructed where the deposition of a single
object is distinguishable as an event separate from any preceding and
subsequent stratigraphic units - think of an urn being deposited in a
cremation grave - where the use of A8 would be defensible.
Hope this helps,
Martijn

On Nov 6, 2018 19:05, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore" 
wrote:

Sorry for the typos and generally confusing text. Here is a hopefully  a
better text:


AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)
Domain: A8 Stratigraphic Unit
Range: A8 Stratigraphic Unit

My issue was about finds as objects. That, how do one model physical
relations between finds (and also modern objects like the pipe). Can a find
be both an object and an A8 Stratigraphic Unit​? Double instanciation? The
find being an instance of  A8 Stratigraphic Unit​ as long as it is not
moved?

Best
Christian-Emil





--
*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of Christian-Emil
Smith Ore 
*Sent:* 06 November 2018 16:19
*To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo


Dear all,

I am working on a mapping from Norwegian excavation databases to
CRM/CRMarcheo. The sets use relations like over/under between layers and
other A8 Stratigraphic  Units.  A question: Can a find be modeled as an
instance of A11 and what about a modern drainage pipe/ditch?


Best,

Christian-Emil

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo Typos

2018-11-06 Thread Martin Doerr 

Dear Christian-Emil

Achille may know better, but finds are described as objects embedded in 
Stratigraphic Units (A7 Embedding).


Best,

Martin


On 11/6/2018 7:55 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:


Sorry for the typos and generally confusing text. Here is a hopefully  
a better text:



AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)
Domain:A8 Stratigraphic Unit
Range:A8 Stratigraphic Unit

My issue was about finds as objects. That, how do one model physical 
relations between finds (and also modern objects like the pipe). Can a 
find be both an object and an A8 Stratigraphic Unit​? Double 
instanciation? The find being an instance of A8 Stratigraphic Unit​ as 
long as it is not moved?


Best
Christian-Emil





*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of 
Christian-Emil Smith Ore 

*Sent:* 06 November 2018 16:19
*To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo

Dear all,

I am working on a mapping from Norwegian excavation databases to 
CRM/CRMarcheo. The sets use relations like over/under between layers 
and other A8 Stratigraphic Units.  A question: Can a find be modeled 
as an instance of A11 and what about a modern drainage pipe/ditch?



Best,

Christian-Emil




___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



--

 Dr. Martin Doerr

 Honorary Head of the
 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

 Vox:+30(2810)391625
 Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo Typos

2018-11-06 Thread Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
Sorry for the typos and generally confusing text. Here is a hopefully  a better 
text:


AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)
Domain: A8 Stratigraphic Unit
Range: A8 Stratigraphic Unit

My issue was about finds as objects. That, how do one model physical relations 
between finds (and also modern objects like the pipe). Can a find be both an 
object and an A8 Stratigraphic Unit?? Double instanciation? The find being an 
instance of  A8 Stratigraphic Unit? as long as it is not moved?

Best
Christian-Emil







From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Christian-Emil Smith 
Ore 
Sent: 06 November 2018 16:19
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo


Dear all,

I am working on a mapping from Norwegian excavation databases to CRM/CRMarcheo. 
The sets use relations like over/under between layers and other A8 
Stratigraphic  Units.  A question: Can a find be modeled as an instance of A11 
and what about a modern drainage pipe/ditch?


Best,

Christian-Emil