Dear Martin,
Your changes seem perfect to me, the labels in this way are much clearer, more
readable than before and much closer to the way archaeologists talk about these
entities.
Thank you very much,
Achille
> Il giorno 20 feb 2021, alle ore 21:23, Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> ha
> scritto:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I continue now proposing these examples consequently for AP13, AP14:
> with analogous change of label for AP13. The format for AP14 is a challenge.
> I hope you like it {?}
>
> for AP13 has stratigraphic relation to (is stratigraphically related by)
> The production of the floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey
> (E12) has stratigraphic relation to the production of wall C (A8) has type
> after (E55). [as observed initally, see AP11] (Hodder 1999)
>
> The production of the floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey
> (A8) has physical relation to the production of wall C (A8) has type before
> (E55). [as observed finally, see AP11] (Hodder 1999)
>
> The production of the wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has
> physical relation to the production of wall D (A8) has type after (E55). [See
> AP11] (Hodder 1999)
>
> The production of the wall D of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has
> physical relation to the production of the floors B’ (A8) has type after
> (E55). [See AP11] (Hodder 1999)
>
> And for AP14 is justified by:
>
> { The production of the floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey
> (E12) has stratigraphic relation to the production of wall C (A8) has type
> before (E55) }
> is justified by
> { The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
> relation to wall C (A8) has type a wall-slot cut for (E55) } [See Ap11,
> AP13] (Hodder 1999)
>
> { The production of the wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8)
> has physical relation to the production of wall D (A8) has type after (E55) }
> is justified by
> { The wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
> relation to wall D (A8) has type abuts on (E55) } [See Ap11, AP13] (Hodder
> 1999)
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 2/20/2021 8:03 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
>> ISSUE 474, Example of AP11
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Creating the examples for AP11 together with Athina Kritsotaki, I
>> encountered a problem with the label.
>>
>> I propose to change:
>>
>> OLD: AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)
>>
>> NEW: AP11 has physical relation to (is physically related by)
>>
>> Here my examples
>>
>> Examples for AP11 has physical relation to:
>>
>>
>> The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
>> relation to wall C (A8) has type runs up to (E55). [as observed initally,
>> see below] (Hodder 1999)
>>
>> The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
>> relation to wall C (A8) has type a wall-slot cut for (E55). [as observed
>> finally, see below] (Hodder 1999)
>>
>> The wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
>> relation to wall D (A8) has type abuts on (E55). (Hodder 1999)
>>
>> The wall D of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical
>> relation to the floors B’ (A8) has type on top of (E55). (Hodder 1999)
>>
>> [Ian Hodder 1999, pp 40-42, describes an example of stratigraphic reasoning
>> and knowledge revisions: “..In the following case taken from
>> Catalhoyuk....we need to look at the plan of Building 1 in figure 3.4.
>> During the excavation of this building in 1996 we came down onto a series of
>> floors at B within the walls C, D, etc. Our first impression was that the
>> floors at B ran up to and were later than wall C…. a later pit F had cut
>> through wall C and floors B. This meant that we could test the idea that the
>> floors were later than the wall. Observation showed that the test could be
>> verified. The C floors did indeed run up to the wall as suggested in inset L
>> (fig 3.4). But as more evidence was put together, it did not fit. We came to
>> realize that the floor B’ was earlier than rubble beneath D. Wall C clearly
>> abutted and was later than wall D. Thus, as we understood the building, the
>> B floors were later than wall C which was later than wall D. And at the same
>> time the B’ floors, which were the same floors as the B floors,
>> were earlier than wall D. The evidence did not make sense……we realized…there
>> was a break between the B floors and the wall C. Our mistake was to assume
>> that the floors on either side of wall C were contemporary. But they were
>> not. Floors were added in the north side of wall C after the south side had
>> gone out of use…”]
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------
> 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
> <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl>_______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
