I am confused about embedding. If it is reincarnated as (a subclass) of S20 then we don't need it. All the properties can be expressed by a combination of existing properties. So I agree that if it is kept then it has be something different from S20.
Best, Christian-Emil ________________________________ From: Achille Felicetti <achille.felice...@pin.unifi.it> Sent: 09 March 2021 12:33 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore; Martin Doerr Cc: crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature Dear Christian-Emil, Martin, I cannot help but continue to think that an embedding is something more immaterial than an S20, for which E3 seems more adequate to me, especially in cases where it is necessary to indicate the position, orientation and other modalities of placement of an object within an archaeological layer. Gerald's consideration is of great importance, and it is true that the surrounding matter of an Embedding can be used to make inferences about the modalities or times of the deposition. However, the “surroundings" of an embedding are not the embedding itself. I imagine that archaeologists would prefer to make such inferences by means of stratigraphy, i.e. identifying the relationships between the surrounding stratigraphic volumes and interfaces. Embedding would be useful more for considerations regarding the state of the deposit over time. But let’s talk later. Bests, A. Il giorno 5 mar 2021, alle ore 15:21, Christian-Emil Smith Ore <c.e.s....@iln.uio.no<mailto:c.e.s....@iln.uio.no>> ha scritto: I agree, and thnak you for reminding me of the existence of P156 occupies. Best, Christian-Emil ________________________________ From: Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> Sent: 05 March 2021 14:02 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore; crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 447, Embedding as Rigid Physical Feature 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><mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr><mailto: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 Place that is documented as the E53 Place of the A7 Embedding. This place must be at rest relative to the instance of A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit that contains the A7 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<mailto: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<mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr<mailto: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
