Dear All,
In the October SIG Meeting, the following arguments were made:
"Gerald Hiebel would prefer A7 Embedding as a S20. One point in the
argumentation may be, that the surrounding matter of an Embedding has a
specific condition is often used to determine parameters like the time
of deposition"
I support this.
"What we loose when we define it as S20:
“It further allows for specifying temporal bounds for which a particular
embedding has existed, as specified by the evidence.
Maybe we could create a property e.g. was embedded for (instead of
AP20?) that relates to a time span to be able to state temporal bounds
of the embedding.
If we define A7 as S20 we would not really need a property AP20 embedded
at as it is already a E53 Place that we could attach spatial information
to."
Counterargument: A Rigid Physical Feature has a genesis event, that
allows for specifying the time of embedding. No extra property needed.
The property AP20 is necessary, because "This property identifies the
E53 <#_E53_Place_1> Place that is documented as the E53 <#_E53_Place_1>
Place of the A7 <#_A7_Embedding> Embedding. This place must be at rest
relative to the instance of A2 <#_A2_Stratigraphic_Volume> Stratigraphic
Volume Unit that contains the A7 <#_A7_Embedding> Embedding."
I believe the relation to the stratigraphic unit would be quite
cumbersome to make otherwise.
Best,
Martin
--
------------------------------------
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: [email protected]
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
