Great, thanks a lot for all the input! This really helps/assures us in what we are trying to do!
So we come up with the following additions to our SITE.E27 graph (grey nodes+edges): http://i.imgur.com/j0QKdqC.jpg Which brings us to the technical part: What other adoptions do we need to make in Arches in order make this resource type work? 1. We have exported the graph from Gephi into ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE (SITE).E27_nodes.csv and ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE (SITE).E27_edges.csv. 2. Now we have to create the Authority Document(s) with our "certainty vocabulary". 3. Next we would run install_packages.sh to get the resource type including vocab into Arches. (Does this take care of all necessary steps to add the new entities on DB level?) 4. Where do we have to get our hands on in the python models/code, so that the user can access the certainty for Components and Phase Type Assignments in the GUI? It's hard to find documentation on this. In v2 the brief part on "Creating Your Own Resource Types" was taken out entirely. Is there a reason for that? Thanks for any further help and keep up the great work of the Arches project! Best, Tobias On Monday, March 31, 2014 4:31:36 PM UTC+2, Phil Carlisle wrote: > > Hi Tobias, > Yes, Geoff's option is equally valid to the P3.E62 and obviously allows > you to type the uncertainty. As I think Dennis mentioned the addition > of certainty types to any of the nodes (following the P2.E55 route) is > perfectly valid (with the addition of a -P71 lists (is listed in) > E32.Uncertainty Authority Document). > > 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:* 31 March 2014 14:52 > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Cc:* 'Tobias Kohr'; [email protected] <javascript:> > *Subject:* Re: [Arches] "uncertain information" in Arches > > 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] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Tobias Kohr >> *Sent:* 28 March 2014 14:33 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Cc:* [email protected] >> *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]. 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. >> >> 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] <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.
