Dear Christian-Emil, I understand the practical need of this operation, but I also fear that this may cause further conceptual inconsistencies since, I imagine, in no way an embedding can be embedded in an A3 as the latter is a feature.
I think it would be more fruitful to apply a constrain on the use of A2 in case an A7 is instantiated … Is this reasonable? Best, A. > Il giorno 26 mar 2021, alle ore 09:27, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig > <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > Dear all, > In issue 447 the SIG has decided to make A7 Embedding a subclass of S20. Ok. > In many excavations archaeologists record structures without specifying > layer (A2) versus surface (A3). Therefore such documented things can only be > modelled as instances of the A8, the superclass of A2 and A3. > Currently > AP19 is embedding in (contains embedding) [[D: A7 Embedding; R: A2 > Stratigraphic Volume Unit] > To be able to document an embedding in the documentation described above, it > would be beneficial to lift the range of AP19 to A8 Archeological Unit: > AP19 is embedding in (contains embedding) [[D: A7 Embedding; R: A8 A8 > Archeological Unit] > > Comments? > > Best, > Christian-Emil > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
