Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 388 measuring position

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Øyvind,

Indeed I'd call this still a form of triangulation. If you determine the 
relative position by (Dx,Dy), you create a rectangular triangle, with 
your distance walked being the hypotenuse.


If you have a nice proposal text to add, welcome! So far, I think I have 
covered analogue practices.


All the best,

Martin

On 3/5/2021 5:11 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:

Dear Martin,

I am considering a possible practical counter-example from my own 
manual measurement experience. I am not sure if it is relevant but 
maybe the first sentence (”Any position measurement is based on 
triangulation with multiples distances to reference points and angle 
measurements”) should be modified.


I am mapping the location of a boulder. Using a compass and my steps, 
fairly well calibrated to one meter, I measure the distance and 
direction from my fix point, in this case the spot where a creek is 
crossing a path.


The fix point itself is established through stereo aerial photography 
and thus, based on a sort of triangulation. But my measurement from 
the fix point and the boulder is based on the distance and direction 
from the single fix point.


Maybe it makes sense to still call this a triangulation as the compass 
shows the direction to the magnetic north.


Whatever can be argued about this, maybe it makes sense to add to the 
GPS descriptions a bit more on analogue measurement practices? They 
were the basis for a massive amount of museum and cultural heritage 
documentation.


All the best,

Øyvind

Am 01.03.2021 um 21:19 schrieb Martin Doerr >:


Dear All,

I revise my previous proposal for measuring positions:


Any position measurement is based on triangulation with multiples 
distances to reference points and angle measurements. GPS measures 
distances to satellites. Distances are Dimensions. If directed 
distances use georeferenced directions, i.e. angle to the rotation 
axis of earth, etc. angles are again dimensions. Hence, a position 
measurement is an evaluation of a combination of multiple associated 
distance and angle measurements from a particular spot to certain 
reference points of known position in the same reference space. If 
stars are used, they constitute (extremely) distant reference points. 
Gravity and Earth Magnetic Field also provide reference directions 
for angle measurements that do not need a second reference point. 
Classical longitude measurements use temporal simultaneity of a 
common event with a reference location, which evaluates to an angle. 
All methods are fairly complex, but the details are a standard 
routine or even hidden in a modern GPS module.


Therefore we argue that position measurement is a specific 
(composite) observation which results in a position expression, but 
the constituent dimensions may or may not be documented.
Hence, P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension may 
not be instantiated.


All position measurements are approximations of other places. 
Therefore, they result in a declarative place defined by an E94 Space 
Primitive. Since in general we talk about moving reference spaces, 
moving things and evolving processes, the time of measurement is 
essential. We take it either to be the time-span of the measurement, 
or a narrower time-span which covers the contributing time-critical 
observations. In essence, this defines a declarative spacetime box 
(volume), which again is an approximation. It appears to me that such 
an approximation would normally be used to determine parts of the 
extent of some instance of Presence by overlap, coverage or containment.


Sxxx Position Measurement

Subclass of: E16 Attribute Assignment

Scope note:     This class comprises activities of measuring 
positions in space and time. The measured position is intended to 
approximate a part or all of the extent of the presence (instance of 
E93 Presence) of an instance of E18 Physical Thing or E4 Period of 
interest, such as the outer walls of an excavated settlement, the 
position of a ship sailing or the start and end of athlete’s run in a 
competition. Characteristically, a theodolite or GPS device may be 
positioned on some persistent feature. Measuring the position of the 
device will yield an approximation of the position of the feature of 
interest. Alternatively, some material item may be observed moving 
through a measured position at a given time.


A position measurement is an evaluation of a combination of 
measurement of multiple associated distances and/or angles (instances 
of E54 Dimension) from a particular spot to certain reference points 
of previously known position in the same reference space.Often, the 
observed constituting dimensions are not documented, or hidden in an 
electronic device software.The measured position is given as an E94 
Space Primitive corresponding to a declarative place. Together with 
the measured time-span covering the time-critical observations it 
forms a spacetime volume, which 

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 388 measuring position

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear Martin,

I am considering a possible practical counter-example from my own manual 
measurement experience. I am not sure if it is relevant but maybe the first 
sentence (”Any position measurement is based on triangulation with multiples 
distances to reference points and angle measurements”) should be modified.

I am mapping the location of a boulder. Using a compass and my steps, fairly 
well calibrated to one meter, I measure the distance and direction from my fix 
point, in this case the spot where a creek is crossing a path.

The fix point itself is established through stereo aerial photography and thus, 
based on a sort of triangulation. But my measurement from the fix point and the 
boulder is based on the distance and direction from the single fix point.

Maybe it makes sense to still call this a triangulation as the compass shows 
the direction to the magnetic north. 

Whatever can be argued about this, maybe it makes sense to add to the GPS 
descriptions a bit more on analogue measurement practices? They were the basis 
for a massive amount of museum and cultural heritage documentation. 

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 01.03.2021 um 21:19 schrieb Martin Doerr :
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I revise my previous proposal for measuring positions:
> 
> 
> Any position measurement is based on triangulation with multiples distances 
> to reference points and angle measurements. GPS measures distances to 
> satellites. Distances are Dimensions. If directed distances use georeferenced 
> directions, i.e. angle to the rotation axis of earth, etc. angles are again 
> dimensions. Hence, a position measurement is an evaluation of a combination 
> of multiple associated distance and angle measurements from a particular spot 
> to certain reference points of known position in the same reference space. If 
> stars are used, they constitute (extremely) distant reference points. Gravity 
> and Earth Magnetic Field also provide reference directions for angle 
> measurements that do not need a second reference point. Classical longitude 
> measurements use temporal simultaneity of a common event with a reference 
> location, which evaluates to an angle. All methods are fairly complex, but 
> the details are a standard routine or even hidden in a modern GPS module. 
> 
> Therefore we argue that position measurement is a specific (composite) 
> observation which results in a position expression, but the constituent 
> dimensions may or may not be documented.
> Hence, P40 observed dimension (was observed in): E54 Dimension may not be 
> instantiated.
>  
> All position measurements are approximations of other places. Therefore, they 
> result in a declarative place defined by an E94 Space Primitive. Since in 
> general we talk about moving reference spaces, moving things and evolving 
> processes, the time of measurement is essential. We take it either to be the 
> time-span of the measurement, or a narrower time-span which covers the 
> contributing time-critical observations. In essence, this defines a 
> declarative spacetime box (volume), which again is an approximation. It 
> appears to me that such an approximation would normally be used to determine 
> parts of the extent of some instance of Presence by overlap, coverage or 
> containment. 
> 
> Sxxx Position Measurement
> 
> Subclass of:E16 Attribute Assignment
> 
> Scope note: This class comprises activities of measuring positions in 
> space and time. The measured position is intended to approximate a part or 
> all of the extent of the presence (instance of E93 Presence) of an instance 
> of E18 Physical Thing or E4 Period of interest, such as the outer walls of an 
> excavated settlement, the position of a ship sailing or the start and end of 
> athlete’s run in a competition. Characteristically, a theodolite or GPS 
> device may be positioned on some persistent feature. Measuring the position 
> of the device will yield an approximation of the position of the feature of 
> interest. Alternatively, some material item may be observed moving through a 
> measured position at a given time. 
> 
> A position measurement is an evaluation of a combination of measurement of 
> multiple associated distances and/or angles (instances of E54 Dimension) from 
> a particular spot to certain reference points of previously known position in 
> the same reference space. Often, the observed constituting dimensions are not 
> documented, or hidden in an electronic device software.The measured position 
> is given as an E94 Space Primitive corresponding to a declarative place. 
> Together with the measured time-span covering the time-critical observations 
> it forms a spacetime volume, which should normally overlap with the 
> spatiotemporal extent of the thing or phenomenon of interest. 
> 
> Properties:
> 
> Oxx1 determined position (was determined by): E94 Space Primitive
> 
> Oxx2 has validity time-span (is position validity for): E52 Time-Span
> 
> We may now 

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

I agree, and thnak you for reminding me of the existence of  P156 occupies​.

Best,

Christian-Emil


From: Martin Doerr 
Sent: 05 March 2021 14:02
To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore; crm-sig
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature

Dear Christian-Emil,

I think so! More precisely:

x P156 occupies y P89 falls within (contains)​ z
...as long as the thing was completely covered.

x P156 occupies y P121 overlaps with z
if parts were above surface, or less constraint for complete coverage.

We may include partial embedding or not.

Both y and z are P157 at rest relative to z

Correct?

Best,

Martin

On 3/5/2021 2:34 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:

Dear all,

In the I October SIG Meeting, the following arguments were made:
"Gerald Hiebel would prefer A7 Embedding as a S20. One point in the 
argumentation may be, that the surrounding matter of an Embedding has a 
specific condition is often used to determine parameters like the time of 
deposition"


MD supports this, and in my opinion this is a correct decision. I was asked to 
have a look at this "CEO to edit A7 Embedding accordingly and also check 
properties AP17 through AP21 (check for consistency with newly postulated 
semantics for A7 and also determine their superproperties)."


If A7 Embedding becomes a subclass of S20 Rigid Physical Feature the temporal 
aspect disappear and  an instance of E7 will be a physical feature surrounding 
an instance(s) of  E18 Physical Thing and a place for this feature. Isn't this 
another way to say that for an instance x of E18 Physical Thing , y of E53 
Place, z of S20 S20 Rigid Physical Feature

x P53 has former or current location (is former or current location of) y P121 
overlaps with/P89 falls within (contains)​ z?


Best,

Christian-Emil​



​

Current definition:
A7 Embedding

[CSO1]

Subclass of:  E3 Condition State

Superclass of:

Scope Note:  This class comprises the states of instances of E18 Physical 
Things of being partially or completely embedded at a particular position with 
relative stability in one or more A2 Stratigraphic Volume Units. Normally, an 
embedding is expected to have been stable from the time of generation of the 
first A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit that surrounds it. However, it may also be 
due to later intrusion. As an empirical fact, the expert may only be able to 
decide that a particular embedding is not recent, i.e. has been persisting for 
longer than the activity that encountered it. This class can be used to 
document the fact of embedding generally with respect to the surrounding matter 
or, more specifically, with respect to a more precise position within this 
matter. It further allows for specifying temporal bounds for which a particular 
embedding has existed, as specified by the evidence.

Examples:

  Τhe individual fallen slabs (E19) that were discovered (S19) during the 
excavation  process of Room 5 (A1) of the West House in Akrotiri, Thera, were 
embedded (A7) in an almost vertical position (E55) within deposit (A8) on the 
ground floor (E53) (Fig. 10).  [Μιχαηλίδου 2001, pp. 68-70].



In First Order Logic:

   A7(x) ⊃ E3(x)



Properties:   AP17 is found by (found): S19 Encounter Event


AP18 is embedding of (is embedded): E18 Physical Thing

AP19 is embedding in (contains embedding): A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit

AP20 is embedding at (contains): E53 Place


 [CSO1]A7 Embedding:

DECISION: to be dealt with in the designated issue 
(447),
 not part of the editorial work.





From: Crm-sig 
 on behalf 
of Martin Doerr 
Sent: 26 February 2021 22:09
To: crm-sig
Subject: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature

Dear All,

In the October SIG Meeting, the following arguments were made:

"Gerald Hiebel would prefer A7 Embedding as a S20. One point in the 
argumentation may be, that the surrounding matter of an Embedding has a 
specific condition is often used to determine parameters like the time of 
deposition"

I support this.

"What we loose when we define it as S20:

“It further allows for specifying temporal bounds for which a particular 
embedding has existed, as specified by the evidence.
Maybe we could create a property e.g. was embedded for (instead of AP20?) that 
relates to a time span to be able to state temporal bounds of the embedding.
If we define A7 as S20 we would not really need a property AP20 embedded at as 
it is already a E53 Place that we could attach spatial information to."

Counterargument: A Rigid Physical Feature has a genesis event, that allows for 
specifying the time of embedding. No extra property needed.

The property AP20 is necessary, because "This property identifies the E53 Place 
that is documented as the E53 Place of the A7 

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature

[Martin Doerr]

Dear Christian-Emil,

I think so! More precisely:

x P156 occupies y P89 falls within (contains)​ z
...as long as the thing was completely covered.

x P156 occupies y P121 overlaps with z
if parts were above surface, or less constraint for complete coverage.

We may include partial embedding or not.

Both y and z are P157 at rest relative to z

Correct?

Best,

Martin

On 3/5/2021 2:34 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:


Dear all,

In the I October SIG Meeting, the following arguments were made:
"Gerald Hiebel would prefer A7 Embedding as a S20. One point in the 
argumentation may be, that the surrounding matter of an Embedding has 
a specific condition is often used to determine parameters like the 
time of deposition"



MD supports this, and in my opinion this is a correct decision. I was 
asked to have a look at this "CEO to edit A7 Embedding accordingly and 
also check properties AP17 through AP21 (check for consistency with 
newly postulated semantics for A7 and also determine their 
superproperties)."



If A7 Embedding becomes a subclass of S20 Rigid Physical Feature the 
temporal aspect disappear and  an instance of E7 will be a physical 
feature surrounding an instance(s) of E18 Physical Thing and a place 
for this feature. Isn't this another way to say that for an instance 
x of E18 Physical Thing , y of E53 Place, z of S20 S20 Rigid Physical 
Feature


x P53 has former or current location (is former or current location 
of) y P121 overlaps with/P89 falls within (contains)​ z?



Best,

Christian-Emil​



​



  Current definition:


  A7 Embedding

[CSO1]

Subclass of: E3 Condition State

Superclass of:

Scope Note:  This class comprises the states of instances of E18 
Physical Things of being partially or completely embedded at a 
particular position with relative stability in one or more A2 
Stratigraphic Volume Units. Normally, an embedding is expected to have 
been stable from the time of generation of the first A2 Stratigraphic 
Volume Unit that surrounds it. However, it may also be due to later 
intrusion. As an empirical fact, the expert may only be able to decide 
that a particular embedding is not recent, i.e. has been persisting 
for longer than the activity that encountered it. This class can be 
used to document the fact of embedding generally with respect to the 
surrounding matter or, more specifically, with respect to a more 
precise position within this matter. It further allows for specifying 
temporal bounds for which a particular embedding has existed, as 
specified by the evidence.


Examples:

  Τhe individual fallen slabs (E19) that were discovered (S19) during 
the excavation  process of Room 5 (A1) of the West House in Akrotiri, 
Thera, were embedded (A7) in an almost vertical position (E55) within 
deposit (A8) on the ground floor (E53) (Fig. 10).  [Μιχαηλίδου 2001, 
pp. 68-70].


In First Order Logic:

       A7(x) ⊃ E3(x)

Properties:**AP17 is found by (found): S19 Encounter Event


AP18 is embedding of (is embedded): E18 Physical Thing

AP19 is embedding in (contains embedding): A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit

AP20 is embedding at (contains): E53 Place


[CSO1]A7 Embedding:

*DECISION*: to be dealt with in the designated issue (447 
), 
not part of the editorial work.




*From:* Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin 
Doerr 

*Sent:* 26 February 2021 22:09
*To:* crm-sig
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature
Dear All,

In the October SIG Meeting, the following arguments were made:

"Gerald Hiebel would prefer A7 Embedding as a S20. One point in the 
argumentation may be, that the surrounding matter of an Embedding has 
a specific condition is often used to determine parameters like the 
time of deposition"


I support this.

"What we loose when we define it as S20:

“It further allows for specifying temporal bounds for which a 
particular embedding has existed, as specified by the evidence.
Maybe we could create a property e.g. was embedded for (instead of 
AP20?) that relates to a time span to be able to state temporal bounds 
of the embedding.
If we define A7 as S20 we would not really need a property AP20 
embedded at as it is already a E53 Place that we could attach spatial 
information to."


Counterargument: A Rigid Physical Feature has a genesis event, that 
allows for specifying the time of embedding. No extra property needed.


The property AP20 is necessary, because "This property identifies the 
E53 <#_E53_Place_1> Place that is documented as the E53 
<#_E53_Place_1> Place of the A7 <#_A7_Embedding> Embedding. This place 
must be at rest relative to the instance of A2 
<#_A2_Stratigraphic_Volume> Stratigraphic Volume Unit that contains 
the A7 <#_A7_Embedding> Embedding."


I believe the relation to the stratigraphic 

Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

Dear all,

In the I October SIG Meeting, the following arguments were made:
"Gerald Hiebel would prefer A7 Embedding as a S20. One point in the 
argumentation may be, that the surrounding matter of an Embedding has a 
specific condition is often used to determine parameters like the time of 
deposition"


MD supports this, and in my opinion this is a correct decision. I was asked to 
have a look at this "CEO to edit A7 Embedding accordingly and also check 
properties AP17 through AP21 (check for consistency with newly postulated 
semantics for A7 and also determine their superproperties)."


If A7 Embedding becomes a subclass of S20 Rigid Physical Feature the temporal 
aspect disappear and  an instance of E7 will be a physical feature surrounding 
an instance(s) of  E18 Physical Thing and a place for this feature. Isn't this 
another way to say that for an instance x of E18 Physical Thing , y of E53 
Place, z of S20 S20 Rigid Physical Feature

x P53 has former or current location (is former or current location of) y P121 
overlaps with/P89 falls within (contains)​ z?


Best,

Christian-Emil​



​

Current definition:
A7 Embedding

[CSO1]

Subclass of:  
E3
 Condition State

Superclass of:

Scope Note:  This class comprises the states of instances of E18 Physical 
Things of being partially or completely embedded at a particular position with 
relative stability in one or more A2 Stratigraphic Volume Units. Normally, an 
embedding is expected to have been stable from the time of generation of the 
first A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit that surrounds it. However, it may also be 
due to later intrusion. As an empirical fact, the expert may only be able to 
decide that a particular embedding is not recent, i.e. has been persisting for 
longer than the activity that encountered it. This class can be used to 
document the fact of embedding generally with respect to the surrounding matter 
or, more specifically, with respect to a more precise position within this 
matter. It further allows for specifying temporal bounds for which a particular 
embedding has existed, as specified by the evidence.

Examples:

  Τhe individual fallen slabs (E19) that were discovered (S19) during the 
excavation  process of Room 5 (A1) of the West House in Akrotiri, Thera, were 
embedded (A7) in an almost vertical position (E55) within deposit (A8) on the 
ground floor (E53) (Fig. 10).  [Μιχαηλίδου 2001, pp. 68-70].



In First Order Logic:

   A7(x) ⊃ E3(x)



Properties:   
AP17
 is found by (found): 
S19
 Encounter Event


AP18
 is embedding of (is embedded): 
E18
 Physical Thing

AP19
 is embedding in (contains embedding): 
A2
 Stratigraphic Volume Unit

AP20
 is embedding at (contains): 
E53
 Place


 
[CSO1]A7
 Embedding:

DECISION: to be dealt with in the designated issue 
(447),
 not part of the editorial work.





From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Martin Doerr 

Sent: 26 February 2021 22:09
To: crm-sig
Subject: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature

Dear All,

In the October SIG Meeting, the following arguments were made:

"Gerald Hiebel would prefer A7 Embedding as a S20. One point in the 
argumentation may be, that the surrounding matter of an Embedding has a 
specific condition is often used to determine parameters like the time of 
deposition"

I support this.

"What we loose when we define it as S20:

“It further allows for specifying temporal bounds for which a particular 
embedding has existed, as specified by the evidence.
Maybe we could create a property e.g. was embedded for (instead of AP20?) that 
relates to a time span to be able to state temporal bounds of the embedding.
If we define A7 as S20 we would not really need a property AP20 embedded at as 
it is already a E53 Place that we could attach spatial information to."

Counterargument: A Rigid Physical Feature has a genesis event, that allows for 
specifying the time of embedding. No extra property needed.

The property AP20 is necessary, because "This property identifies the E53 Place 
that is documented as the E53 Place of the A7 Embedding. This place must be at 
rest relative to the instance of A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit that contains the 
A7 Embedding."

I believe the relation to the stratigraphic unit would be quite cumbersome to 
make otherwise.

Best,

Martin


--

 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
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr