Dear Christian-Emil,
I think so! More precisely:
x P156 occupies y P89 falls within (contains) z
...as long as the thing was completely covered.
x P156 occupies y P121 overlaps with z
if parts were above surface, or less constraint for complete coverage.
We may include partial embedding or not.
Both y and z are P157 at rest relative to z
Correct?
Best,
Martin
On 3/5/2021 2:34 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
Dear all,
In the I 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"
MD supports this, and in my opinion this is a correct decision. I was
asked to have a look at this "CEO to edit A7 Embedding accordingly and
also check properties AP17 through AP21 (check for consistency with
newly postulated semantics for A7 and also determine their
superproperties)."
If A7 Embedding becomes a subclass of S20 Rigid Physical Feature the
temporal aspect disappear and an instance of E7 will be a physical
feature surrounding an instance(s) of E18 Physical Thing and a place
for this feature. Isn't this another way to say that for an instance
x of E18 Physical Thing , y of E53 Place, z of S20 S20 Rigid Physical
Feature
x P53 has former or current location (is former or current location
of) y P121 overlaps with/P89 falls within (contains) z?
Best,
Christian-Emil
Current definition:
A7 Embedding
[CSO1]
Subclass of: E3 Condition State
Superclass of:
Scope Note: This class comprises the states of instances of E18
Physical Things of being partially or completely embedded at a
particular position with relative stability in one or more A2
Stratigraphic Volume Units. Normally, an embedding is expected to have
been stable from the time of generation of the first A2 Stratigraphic
Volume Unit that surrounds it. However, it may also be due to later
intrusion. As an empirical fact, the expert may only be able to decide
that a particular embedding is not recent, i.e. has been persisting
for longer than the activity that encountered it. This class can be
used to document the fact of embedding generally with respect to the
surrounding matter or, more specifically, with respect to a more
precise position within this matter. It further allows for specifying
temporal bounds for which a particular embedding has existed, as
specified by the evidence.
Examples:
Τhe individual fallen slabs (E19) that were discovered (S19) during
the excavation process of Room 5 (A1) of the West House in Akrotiri,
Thera, were embedded (A7) in an almost vertical position (E55) within
deposit (A8) on the ground floor (E53) (Fig. 10). [Μιχαηλίδου 2001,
pp. 68-70].
In First Order Logic:
A7(x) ⊃ E3(x)
Properties:**AP17 is found by (found): S19 Encounter Event
AP18 is embedding of (is embedded): E18 Physical Thing
AP19 is embedding in (contains embedding): A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit
AP20 is embedding at (contains): E53 Place
[CSO1]A7 Embedding:
*DECISION*: to be dealt with in the designated issue (447
<http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-447-a7-embedding-as-a-physical-feature-like-entity>),
not part of the editorial work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin
Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr>
*Sent:* 26 February 2021 22:09
*To:* crm-sig
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature
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:mar...@ics.forth.gr
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
--
------------------------------------
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
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
