Adding this line COMPONENT CERTAINTY TYPE.E55,COMPONENT CERTAINTY TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.csv,EH SOURCE DATA
to ENTITY_TYPE_X_ADOC.csv doesn't solve the problem. What does authoritydocconceptschemename refer to? The DB scheme? The Authority Files should be encoded in UTF-8 (on Linux), right? Does with/without BOM make a difference? Notepad++ on Windows tells me that the Authority Files of the default cds package are encoded in ANSI, however, which surprises me. I will try to see if the error is an encoding problem. Best, Tobias 2014-04-01 17:16 GMT+02:00 Adam Lodge <[email protected]>: > I'm not sure, but it's the first thing I'd try. > > Adam > On Apr 1, 2014 8:14 AM, "Tobias Kohr" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Adam, >> >> alright, I was not aware of the existence of this file (using Arches v2). >> I guess we need include our newly defined entity type here. Is this the >> reason for the error? >> >> Thanks! >> -Tobias >> >> >> 2014-04-01 17:02 GMT+02:00 Adam Lodge <[email protected]>: >> >>> Tobias, >>> >>> No such thing as a stupid question. >>> >>> Assuming that you are running v2 of Arches, the file should exist in >>> this folder: source_data\concepts\authority_files , and its name is >>> actually ENTITY_TYPE_X_ADOC.csv >>> >>> If you're running an earlier version, just send me COMPONENT CERTAINTY >>> TYPE AUTHORITY DOCUMENT.CSV and we'll start there. >>> >>> -- >>> Adam Lodge >>> Geospatial Systems Consultant >>> Farallon Geographics >>> 415.317.6625 >>> >>> On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Tobias Kohr wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I feel a little stupid asking this, but which file do you mean >>> with ENTITY_TYPE_X_AUTHDOC.csv? (Perhaps already the solution to my >>> problem?) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Tobias >>> >>> On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 4:46:28 PM UTC+2, Adam Lodge wrote: >>> >>> 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 which throws the following error: >>> >>> root@srv-i3-fundstellendb:/arches-web/archesproject/build# source >>> 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] [[email protected]] namens >>> [email protected] [[email protected]] >>> Verzonden: donderdag 27 maart 2014 22:36 >>> Aan: [email protected] >>> CC: [email protected] >>> 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]<mailto:th >>> [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]<mailto: >>> [email protected]>. To unsubscribe, send email to >>> [email protected]<mailto:archesproject+ >>> [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:archesproject+ >>> [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]<mailto:archesproject+ >>> [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. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- 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.
