Hi christian-emil, No, a find should not normally be modeled as a stratigraphic unit, because the latter is intended to represent chronologically separable processes such as cutting and filling. In most cases the embedded objects are deposited together with soil as a single bulk deposit, so do not represent an A8 by themselves. However, examples can be constructed where the deposition of a single object is distinguishable as an event separate from any preceding and subsequent stratigraphic units - think of an urn being deposited in a cremation grave - where the use of A8 would be defensible. Hope this helps, Martijn
On Nov 6, 2018 19:05, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore" <[email protected]> wrote: Sorry for the typos and generally confusing text. Here is a hopefully a better text: AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of) Domain: A8 Stratigraphic Unit Range: A8 Stratigraphic Unit My issue was about finds as objects. That, how do one model physical relations between finds (and also modern objects like the pipe). Can a find be both an object and an A8 Stratigraphic Unit​? Double instanciation? The find being an instance of A8 Stratigraphic Unit​ as long as it is not moved? Best Christian-Emil ------------------------------ *From:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Christian-Emil Smith Ore <[email protected]> *Sent:* 06 November 2018 16:19 *To:* [email protected] *Subject:* [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo Dear all, I am working on a mapping from Norwegian excavation databases to CRM/CRMarcheo. The sets use relations like over/under between layers and other A8 Stratigraphic Units. A question: Can a find be modeled as an instance of A11 and what about a modern drainage pipe/ditch? Best, Christian-Emil _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
