Hi Phil, thanks for the feedback!
We totally agree that it doesn't make sense to model whether a site has finds or not. Our situation is a little different though, which I didn't express very clearly. In our case we are often rather unsure if a find or feature belongs to the phase that the site has been dated to, based on other finds/features. Two hypothetical examples: - Let's say we are sure that the ceramics found at site A belong to our interpretation of the site, but we are unsure if the burials that were found at the site do, as well. - Or we might be sure that one feature of the site is a post hole, but we are not sure that the other feature can be interpreted as a ditch or as a pit. Then we might try to model our uncertainty using the P3 (has note) - E62 (String) route or the P2 (has type) - E55 (Type) route as proposed by Geoff Carver in the Antiquist list: https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/antiquist/w0R9VXDk5U4 Thanks again for any further thoughts! Best, Tobias On Monday, March 31, 2014 12:26:11 PM UTC+2, Phil Carlisle wrote: > > Hi Tobias, Thomas et al, > > It is perfectly valid to assign a level of certainty to an interpretation > of a site/find. Thus a type assignment of PIT with a note of 'Uncertain' or > a phase type assignment of 'Medieval' with a '?' is fine and indeed we > (English Heritage) use something similar. > > However I noticed on the Antiquist list that Tobias has used the example > of wanting to model the uncertainty of whether a site may have finds or > not. Is that right or have I misunderstood? > > As far as I'm aware the CRM cannot model this situation and in fact would > argue against modelling it at all. If you are certain that a site is > an ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE you can record it as such but if it is unexcavated > and you are just conjecturing what it may contain then that should just be > a note in the description. > > So I think that if you are modelling the uncertainty of an interpretation > then you can use the P3-E62 route but you can't really model the > uncertainty of the existence of a thing using the CRM. > > I hope this helps, and others may have different opinions! > > Phil > > > > > *Phil Carlisle* > > Data Standards Supervisor > > Data Standards Unit, Designations Department > > English Heritage > > The Engine House > > Fire Fly Avenue > > Swindon > > SN2 2EH > > Tel: +44 (0)1793 414824 > > > > http://thesaurus.english-heritage.org.uk/ > > > > http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] <javascript:> [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *Tobias Kohr > *Sent:* 28 March 2014 14:33 > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Cc:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Subject:* Re: [Arches] "uncertain information" in Arches > > Hi Dennis, > > thanks for your quick response! > > Working together with Thomas, in fact one option that came to our mind was > to attach "certainty nodes" to the entities where we need them > (Component.E18 and Phase Type Assignment.E17 in our case) to technically > implement uncertainty in Arches. > We are struggling, however, to find an entity type in CIDOC CRM that seems > adequate for modelling certainties. The only type that seems a possibility > to us here is E59 Primitive Value / E62 String. > So, conceptually we ask ourselves if there is a more adequate CIDOC type > (which is designed for modelling certainties). And philosophically we are > not sure if it doesn't contradict the idea of a E18 Physical Thing > (Component.E18) to possess an attribute that expresses (un-)certainty of > existence. We appreciate any comments or hints on these thoughts! > > Best, > Tobias > > On Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:36:05 PM UTC+1, Dennis Wuthrich wrote: >> >> Thomas, >> >> Good question! You are quite correct that we haven’t tried to include >> uncertainty in Arches. >> >> One reason is pretty basic: certainty is quite subjective from person to >> person. For example: most people agree that the earth is spherical. >> But a “flat-earther” may be very certain that the earth is not a >> sphere, but is instead a plane. His certainty does not make him correct, >> it merely states the degree to which he believes in his interpretation. >> Clearly, you can be very certain and very wrong at the same time. I guess >> my point is that in many cases “certainty” says more about the person >> making the assertion than it does about the thing being described. >> >> OK, all philosophy aside, one could easily extend any Arches graph to >> include a “certainty node”. Such a node could point to a thesaurus (as >> many of the nodes in Arches already do), allowing a user to select from a >> list of “uncertainty levels”. Really, any Arches graph could include >> a “certainty node” under any entity that you might want to qualify (for >> example, one certainty node for period and another certainty node for >> heritage type). >> >> Really, the hard part is not in getting Arches to allow you to add >> an “uncertainty level” to your cultural heritage data. Rather, the >> difficult thing is to decide how you’ll get different people to agree on >> what constitutes certain vs. uncertain interpretations of heritage. >> >> Sorry that I can’t be any more helpful… However, I’m very interested >> to hear how you will model uncertainty and how you will get people to >> implement it consistently. Please keep me posted! >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dennis >> >> >> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:41, [email protected] wrote: >> >> I have a question about conceptual modeling in CIDOC CRM, maybe there is >> someone one the list who is able to provide some guidance. >> >> As posted before, we are trying to integrate research data of neolithic >> sites into Arches. Now, naturally a significant part of this data has a >> level of "certainty" to which the information is correct. e.g. a site can >> consist of some features for certain (in this case modeled in the >> Archaeological Heritage (Site).E27 - Component.E18 relationship) but if >> others exist is uncertain. We believe this valuable information should not >> get lost (quite often theory construction is based on such information). >> >> For example it could be uncertain if an archaeological feature is to be >> named "pit" or "ditch" - or if it exists at all. Another example could be >> the questionable relationship of a findspot to a certain archaeological >> period. To make it even more difficult, different authors could have >> different thoughts on that. >> >> As far as we can see, the expression of such "uncertainty" is not covered >> by Arches yet. Is there a concept for the integration of such data in the >> future? We are currently thinking into potential solutions but are >> struggeling to find adequate expressions for uncertain information in CIDOC. >> >> thanks, Thomas >> >> -- >> -- To post, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe, >> send email to [email protected]. For more information, >> visit https://groups.google.com/d/forum/archesproject?hl=en >> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Arches Project" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> -- > -- To post, send email to [email protected] <javascript:>. To > unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > For more information, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/forum/archesproject?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Arches Project" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal > views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically > stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system > and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the > information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to > English Heritage may become publicly available. > > Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage > Collection; have a look and tell us what you think. > > http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/portico/ > -- -- To post, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]. For more information, visit https://groups.google.com/d/forum/archesproject?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Arches Project" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
