Dear all,?
In the Berlin November meeting 2018, I suggested that one should generalize 'AP11 has physical relation' from CRMarcheo to CRMsci so that it could be used for all layered structures but also for cuts done in archaeological excavations. It became clear during the discussion that the scope of 'AP11 has physical relation'? was strictly limited to the physical relation between layers and surfaces observed in archaeological excavations. The AP11.1 is used to type the relation e.g. over, under, mortar layers, one structure modified by another (eg a grave cut into another grave etc.), that is, every relation that can be used as the basis for the chronology of the layers. The remaining issue is how to model the physical relations between physical objects/features which are not naturally modelled as instances of ?'A8 Stratigraphic Unit'. In many of the 597 archaeological excavations sets I have analysed there are objects and features which I hesitate to model as instances of ?'A8 Stratigraphic Unit'? like modern structures natural formations, roots etc. Some relations can be expressed indirectly through the location of the objects, that is, by the properties of E53 Space: P89<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_P89_falls_within> falls within (contains): E53<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_E53_Place> Place P121<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_P121_overlaps_with> overlaps with: E53<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_E53_Place> Place P122<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_P122_borders_with> borders with: E53<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_E53_Place> Place P157<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_P157(Px2)_is_at> is at rest relative to (provides reference space for): E18<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_E18_Physical_Thing> Physical Thing P168<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_P168_place_is> place is defined by (defines place) : E94<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_E94_Space_Primitive> Space Primitive P171<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_P171_at_some> at some place within : E94<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_E94_Space_Primitive> Space Primitive P172<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_P172_contains> contains : E94<file:///M:/cidoc-crm/2020/CIDOC%20CRM_v6.2.7_Definition_esIP.docx#_E94_Space_Primitive> Space Primitive? There is no property about a general relative position of two instances of E53 Place. It is hard to see how to model the standard spatial relations like 'over' and 'under' we find in the documentation. Most of the documentation (I have seen) is about situations on Earth, where up and down is determined by the gravitation. One could argue that the documentation should contain x,y,z coordinates, but it does not always do, especially documentation earlier then 1990.? The problem is similar to the temporal ordering, where the issue is easier since it is one-dimensional. I am happy if somebody could point to a solution in the CRM. If not we should make this into an isssue. Best, Christian-Emil
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
