Tobias,  

Could you send me a the COMPONENT CERTAINTY TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV file 
and the ENTITY_TYPE_X_AUTHDOC.csv file?  With those, I can probably tell you 
what the issue is.

Adam  

--  
Adam Lodge
Geospatial Systems Consultant
Farallon Geographics
415.317.6625


On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Tobias Kohr wrote:

> Hi Dennis, Koen, et al.
>  
> we will have a closer look at the CIDOC extension and try to keep in mind 
> that people have different interpretations for uncerainty.
>  
> Regarding the technical implementation we're encountering problems in step 3, 
> running install_packages.sh (http://install_packages.sh) which throws the 
> following error:
>  
> root@srv-i3-fundstellendb:/arches-web/archesproject/build# source 
> install_packages.sh (http://install_packages.sh)
> Install packages defined in settings.py
> operation: install
> ...||ABSOLUTE DATING METHOD AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV
> ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV
> ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.VALUES.CSV
> ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV
> ARCHAEOLOGICAL COMPONENT TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV
> ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE (ARTIFACT) TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV
> ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE (SITE) TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV
> ARCHAEOLOGICAL TECHNIQUE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV
> ARCHES RESOURCE CROSS-REFERENCE RELATIONSHIP TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV
> ARCHES RESOURCE CROSS-REFERENCE RELATIONSHIP TYPE AUTHORITY 
> DOCUMENT.VALUES.CSV
> ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENT TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV
> ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV
> ARCHITECTURAL TECHNIQUE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV
> COMPONENT CERTAINTY TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "../manage.py", line 28, in <module>
>     execute_from_command_line(sys.argv)
>   File 
> "/arches-web/archesproject/virtualenv/ENV/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py",
>  line 399, in execute_from_command_line
>     utility.execute()
>   File 
> "/arches-web/archesproject/virtualenv/ENV/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py",
>  line 392, in execute
>     self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from_argv(self.argv)
>   File 
> "/arches-web/archesproject/virtualenv/ENV/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py",
>  line 242, in run_from_argv
>     self.execute(*args, **options.__dict__)
>   File 
> "/arches-web/archesproject/virtualenv/ENV/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py",
>  line 285, in execute
>     output = self.handle(*args, **options)
>   File "/arches-web/archesproject/build/management/commands/packages.py", 
> line 47, in handle
>     self.load_package(package)
>   File "/arches-web/archesproject/build/management/commands/packages.py", 
> line 52, in load_package
>     install(settings.ROOT_DIR)
>   File "/arches-web/archesproject/packages/cdscert/setup.py", line 60, in 
> install
>     authority_files.load_authority_files(package_settings.ROOT_DIR)
>   File 
> "/arches-web/archesproject/packages/cdscert/install/authority_files.py", line 
> 22, in load_authority_files
>     load_authority_file(cursor, mapping_files_directory, file_name)
>   File 
> "/arches-web/archesproject/packages/cdscert/install/authority_files.py", line 
> 63, in load_authority_file
>     concepts.insert_concept(settings.DATA_CONCEPT_SCHEME, 
> adoc_dict['PREFLABEL'], '', 'en-us', adoc_dict['CONCEPTID'])
> KeyError: 'CONCEPTID'
>  
> Our provisional Authority Files look like this:
>  
> - COMPONENT CERTAINTY TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.csv
> conceptid,PrefLabel,AltLabels,ParentConceptid,ConceptType,Provider  
> COMPONENT_CERTAINTY_1,certain,,COMPONENT CERTAINTY TYPE AUTHORITY 
> DOCUMENT.csv,Index,i3mainz
> COMPONENT_CERTAINTY_2,uncertain,,COMPONENT CERTAINTY TYPE AUTHORITY 
> DOCUMENT.csv,Index,i3mainz
> COMPONENT_CERTAINTY_3,unknown,,COMPONENT CERTAINTY TYPE AUTHORITY 
> DOCUMENT.csv,Index,i3mainz
>  
> - COMPONENT CERTAINTY TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.values.csv (do we need this 
> one?)
> conceptid,Value,ValueType,Provider  
> COMPONENT_CERTAINTY_1,1,sortorder,i3mainz
> COMPONENT_CERTAINTY_2,2,sortorder,i3mainz
> COMPONENT_CERTAINTY_3,3,sortorder,i3mainz
>  
> Can anybody tell us what's wrong with our conceptid? Does the 
> authority_files.py search for the ID in any additional place, where we should 
> reference it?
>  
> Cheers,
> Tobias
>  
> On Monday, March 31, 2014 11:22:27 PM UTC+2, Koen Van Daele wrote:
> > Hi all,  
> >  
> > I just wanted to get back at what Dennis said at the beginning of this 
> > thread. Im quite curious how you will get people to agree on (un)certainty. 
> > If feels like a very natural idea to talk and think about, but I haven't 
> > really seen it function properly in practice.  
> >  
> > We once did an experiment where we had 10 people who were used to entering 
> > data in our archaeological inventory system enter the same site. We paired 
> > the archaeologists: one more more experienced data entry person (a few 
> > years experience) and one newbie (a few months), so they would be forced to 
> > really think things through and discuss. In our database we have a field 
> > for certain the data entry person is about the location of the site, ie. 
> > about the polygon they might have drawn on a map. This field only allowed 5 
> > choices, ranging from 1 (I'm sure it's exactly where it needs to be) to 5 
> > (I have no idea whatsoever where the site is). We had a very detailed 
> > manual with examples of all these cases, what to use when, ...  
> > Final result of our experiment: every group had entered the location with a 
> > different level of certainty. So, based on the exact same information they 
> > had all drawn totally different conclusions. And this was about something 
> > as simple as the location of the site.  
> >  
> > So, I'm very curious about how you manage to prevent stuff like this from 
> > happening.  
> >  
> > The other thing I wonder about: how does certainty affect searching? Should 
> > a search for 'churches' only return sites that have a certain "certainty" 
> > attached to the interpretation? Are you working with sliding scale of 
> > certainty (ie. we are 75% percent certain about this statement) or a binary 
> > one (we're certain or uncertain)?  
> >  
> > Cheers,  
> > Koen  
> > ________________________________________  
> > Van: [email protected] (javascript:) [[email protected] 
> > (javascript:)] namens [email protected] (javascript:) [[email protected] 
> > (javascript:)]  
> > Verzonden: donderdag 27 maart 2014 22:36  
> > Aan: [email protected] (javascript:)  
> > CC: [email protected] (javascript:)  
> > Onderwerp: Re: [Arches] "uncertain information" in Arches  
> >  
> > 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] 
> > (javascript:)<mailto:[email protected] (javascript:)> 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] 
> > (javascript:)<mailto:[email protected] (javascript:)>. To 
> > unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] 
> > (javascript:)<mailto:[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:)<mailto:[email protected] 
> > (javascript:)>.  
> > 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:)<mailto:[email protected] 
> > (javascript:)>.  
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.  
>  
> --  
> -- To post, send email to [email protected] 
> (mailto:[email protected]). To unsubscribe, send email to 
> [email protected] 
> (mailto:[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] 
> (mailto:[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.

Reply via email to