I find the answer surprising. It is not up to us to define what is important or not to query a database. If the archaeologists document this way, we are not in a position to say, “Hey, it is of no interest to query a database with such information so you should not document in this way”.
On should also remember that the AP11 is used to record such facts found during in an excavation., that is, AP11.1 may well be ‘on top of’, ‘under’ and can be used as long as the matter is considered as archaeological structures, which relative position is used to infer AP14. Currently I have discussed this with 3 archaeologist in Norway and Keith, Achille and Gerald. We all live on Earth where the gravity force makes up and down well defined. Best, Christian-Emil ________________________________ From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> Sent: 06 February 2020 14:55 To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Relative position under and over - adjusted text Dear All, My impression is that the issue is too complex to result in a simple set of foundational relations, and we lack the expertise. There is a thematic series in the ER Conferences about spatial reasoning, a small part of which I have seen, with an immense diversity of models. I'd recommend not to continue discussion without an expert in this area, or someone reading into it. The relations Christian-Emil lists below are foundational terms of topology, with clear logical definitions. I would also argue, that "over", "under" has no relevance for querying integrated data sets, but is relevant to locally confined, specialized reasoning. I argue therefore, that is is out of scope. If there could be found a general notion of geometric closeness, that may be important in order to retrieve datasets that may contain more detailed topological terms in other representational frameworks. The question what is not a stratigraphic unit I regard as important, and I'd recommend to discuss your observations with archaeologists in the next Meeting. All the best, Martin On 2/4/2020 10:00 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: 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<mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- ------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Doerr Honorary Head of the Center for Cultural Informatics Information Systems Laboratory Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece Vox:+30(2810)391625 Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
