Co-author here. Yes, we use [2] as evidence for [1], and if new evidence is unearthed, the "restricted" statement may turn out to be false.
The "closed world assumption" was only meant as an analogy. We do not argue that a "Restriction" statement in the sense of a bounding box can be inferred from the given "appears in" and "typical for" statements. (Maybe one should also distinguish between the knowledge of the archaeologist and the — possibly incomplete — list of actual "appears in" and "typical for" statements.) Instead, it probably needs to be an explicit new statement, and the inferred statement in Figure 3 should probably have a different name that doesn't suggest anything but an inferred statement. The point of the Restriction being a timespan rather than a period was, I think, that the sum of periods may not automatically be a period itself. In particular, it may not be identical to the "production of the Paukenfibel" period. However, in Figure 3 we assume that there is at least no temporal gap inbetween. And timespan means more or less the same as spacetime volume here since the area in the example is always the same. By the way, we have a similar problem in our gazetteer, where we need to express the fact that a given region is part of the union of three other regions. Best, Wolfgang > Am 06.01.2016 um 13:42 schrieb Øyvind Eide <[email protected]>: > > Dear all, > > This was an interesting read. I have a question: > > I do not understand the logic of the last paragraph in page 2. First they > talk about > > [1] “a specific time period in which and only in which objects of a given > type have been created” > > and then they go on to talk about > > [2] no finds from other periods. > > [2] is much weaker than [1] but is seems to me that [2] is still used as > evidence for [1]. I do not argue that is wrong to use it as evidence (there > are never proofs in heritage based research of this kind) but I fail to see > how it can be seen as a closed world assumption — that is pretty strong. > > I think it is a good choice to model it as an implicit restriction, though; > the modelling looks fine. It is more the use of “closed world” I wonder about. > > > As for the choice between modelling of periods as timespans or periods I > think this feeds well into the discussion we have on space-time modelling and > this document will be useful for the discussions in Prato. > > Regards, > > Øyvind > > 28. des. 2015 kl. 19:53 skrev martin <[email protected]>: > >> Dear All, >> >> I wish you all a Happy New Year! >> >> Please see this document to discuss properties of E55 Type >> for archaeological reasoning: >> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/E55-Type-Relations.pdf >> >> Best, >> >> martin >> >> -- >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | >> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | >> | Email: >> [email protected] >> | >> | >> 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 | >> | >> Web-site: >> http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl >> | >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
