[Crm-sig] Issue 332: new class and properties for sample splitting
Dear all, During the last SIG I was asked to reformulate some homework around splitting samples for CRMsci. This included creating a new class and two new properties (one of them from the revised homework). Please find this new homework attached here. All the best, Thanasis sample-splitting-class-and-properties.docx Description: MS-Word 2007 document sample-splitting-class-and-properties.odt Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 474, examples for CRMarchaeo AP13,AP14
Dear Martin,
thank you for the work on the issue 474 and also the starting point (issue 480)
to change the domain and range of AP14 to the relation and not the type
assignment.
As Achille stated it is much clearer and the change on AP14 is an essential one.
Best,
Gerald
From: Crm-sig on behalf of Achille Felicetti
Date: Monday, 22. February 2021 at 11:25
To: Martin Doerr
Cc: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr"
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 474, examples for CRMarchaeo AP13,AP14
Dear Martin,
Your changes seem perfect to me, the labels in this way are much clearer, more
readable than before and much closer to the way archaeologists talk about these
entities.
Thank you very much,
Achille
Il giorno 20 feb 2021, alle ore 21:23, Martin Doerr
mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> ha scritto:
Dear All,
I continue now proposing these examples consequently for AP13, AP14:
with analogous change of label for AP13. The format for AP14 is a challenge. I
hope you like it {?}
for AP13 has stratigraphic relation to (is stratigraphically related by)
The production of the floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (E12)
has stratigraphic relation to the production of wall C (A8) has type after
(E55). [as observed initally, see AP11] (Hodder 1999)
The production of the floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8)
has physical relation to the production of wall C (A8) has type before (E55).
[as observed finally, see AP11] (Hodder 1999)
The production of the wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has
physical relation to the production of wall D (A8) has type after (E55). [See
AP11] (Hodder 1999)
The production of the wall D of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has
physical relation to the production of the floors B’ (A8) has type after (E55).
[See AP11] (Hodder 1999)
And for AP14 is justified by:
{ The production of the floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey
(E12) has stratigraphic relation to the production of wall C (A8) has type
before (E55) }
is justified by
{ The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
relation to wall C (A8) has type a wall-slot cut for (E55) } [See Ap11, AP13]
(Hodder 1999)
{ The production of the wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has
physical relation to the production of wall D (A8) has type after (E55) }
is justified by
{ The wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation
to wall D (A8) has type abuts on (E55) } [See Ap11, AP13] (Hodder 1999)
Best,
Martin
On 2/20/2021 8:03 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
ISSUE 474, Example of AP11
Dear All,
Creating the examples for AP11 together with Athina Kritsotaki, I encountered a
problem with the label.
I propose to change:
OLD: AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)
NEW: AP11 has physical relation to (is physically related by)
Here my examples
Examples for AP11 has physical relation to:
The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
relation to wall C (A8) has type runs up to (E55). [as observed initally, see
below] (Hodder 1999)
The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
relation to wall C (A8) has type a wall-slot cut for (E55). [as observed
finally, see below] (Hodder 1999)
The wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation
to wall D (A8) has type abuts on (E55). (Hodder 1999)
The wall D of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation
to the floors B’ (A8) has type on top of (E55). (Hodder 1999)
[Ian Hodder 1999, pp 40-42, describes an example of stratigraphic reasoning and
knowledge revisions: “..In the following case taken from Catalhoyukwe need
to look at the plan of Building 1 in figure 3.4. During the excavation of this
building in 1996 we came down onto a series of floors at B within the walls C,
D, etc. Our first impression was that the floors at B ran up to and were later
than wall C…. a later pit F had cut through wall C and floors B. This meant
that we could test the idea that the floors were later than the wall.
Observation showed that the test could be verified. The C floors did indeed run
up to the wall as suggested in inset L (fig 3.4). But as more evidence was put
together, it did not fit. We came to realize that the floor B’ was earlier than
rubble beneath D. Wall C clearly abutted and was later than wall D. Thus, as we
understood the building, the B floors were later than wall C which was later
than wall D. And at the same time the B’ floors, which were the same floors as
the B floors, were earlier than wall D. The evidence did not make sense……we
realized…there was a break between the B floors and the wall C. Our mistake was
to assume that the floors on either side of wall C were contemporary. But they
were not. Floors were added in the north side of wall C after the south side
had gone out of use…”]
--
Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE 474, examples for CRMarchaeo AP13,AP14
Dear Martin,
Your changes seem perfect to me, the labels in this way are much clearer, more
readable than before and much closer to the way archaeologists talk about these
entities.
Thank you very much,
Achille
> Il giorno 20 feb 2021, alle ore 21:23, Martin Doerr ha
> scritto:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I continue now proposing these examples consequently for AP13, AP14:
> with analogous change of label for AP13. The format for AP14 is a challenge.
> I hope you like it {?}
>
> for AP13 has stratigraphic relation to (is stratigraphically related by)
> The production of the floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey
> (E12) has stratigraphic relation to the production of wall C (A8) has type
> after (E55). [as observed initally, see AP11] (Hodder 1999)
>
> The production of the floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey
> (A8) has physical relation to the production of wall C (A8) has type before
> (E55). [as observed finally, see AP11] (Hodder 1999)
>
> The production of the wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has
> physical relation to the production of wall D (A8) has type after (E55). [See
> AP11] (Hodder 1999)
>
> The production of the wall D of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has
> physical relation to the production of the floors B’ (A8) has type after
> (E55). [See AP11] (Hodder 1999)
>
> And for AP14 is justified by:
>
> { The production of the floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey
> (E12) has stratigraphic relation to the production of wall C (A8) has type
> before (E55) }
> is justified by
> { The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
> relation to wall C (A8) has type a wall-slot cut for (E55) } [See Ap11,
> AP13] (Hodder 1999)
>
> { The production of the wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8)
> has physical relation to the production of wall D (A8) has type after (E55) }
> is justified by
> { The wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
> relation to wall D (A8) has type abuts on (E55) } [See Ap11, AP13] (Hodder
> 1999)
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 2/20/2021 8:03 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
>> ISSUE 474, Example of AP11
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Creating the examples for AP11 together with Athina Kritsotaki, I
>> encountered a problem with the label.
>>
>> I propose to change:
>>
>> OLD: AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)
>>
>> NEW: AP11 has physical relation to (is physically related by)
>>
>> Here my examples
>>
>> Examples for AP11 has physical relation to:
>>
>>
>> The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
>> relation to wall C (A8) has type runs up to (E55). [as observed initally,
>> see below] (Hodder 1999)
>>
>> The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
>> relation to wall C (A8) has type a wall-slot cut for (E55). [as observed
>> finally, see below] (Hodder 1999)
>>
>> The wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
>> relation to wall D (A8) has type abuts on (E55). (Hodder 1999)
>>
>> The wall D of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
>> relation to the floors B’ (A8) has type on top of (E55). (Hodder 1999)
>>
>> [Ian Hodder 1999, pp 40-42, describes an example of stratigraphic reasoning
>> and knowledge revisions: “..In the following case taken from
>> Catalhoyukwe need to look at the plan of Building 1 in figure 3.4.
>> During the excavation of this building in 1996 we came down onto a series of
>> floors at B within the walls C, D, etc. Our first impression was that the
>> floors at B ran up to and were later than wall C…. a later pit F had cut
>> through wall C and floors B. This meant that we could test the idea that the
>> floors were later than the wall. Observation showed that the test could be
>> verified. The C floors did indeed run up to the wall as suggested in inset L
>> (fig 3.4). But as more evidence was put together, it did not fit. We came to
>> realize that the floor B’ was earlier than rubble beneath D. Wall C clearly
>> abutted and was later than wall D. Thus, as we understood the building, the
>> B floors were later than wall C which was later than wall D. And at the same
>> time the B’ floors, which were the same floors as the B floors,
>> were earlier than wall D. The evidence did not make sense……we realized…there
>> was a break between the B floors and the wall C. Our mistake was to assume
>> that the floors on either side of wall C were contemporary. But they were
>> not. Floors were added in the north side of wall C after the south side had
>> gone out of use…”]
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Dr. Martin Doerr
>
> Honorary Head of the
>
> Center for Cultural Informatics
>
> Information Systems Laboratory
