Re: [Crm-sig] Relative position under and over - adjusted text
Dear George,
I think I have been thoroughly misunderstood. I have repeated here a
basic principle we have commonly adopted from the very beginning of the
CRM. I am slightly upset, that I have been interpreted to willfully
declare queries unimportant of a domain that is not mine, and that you
assume I would ever do so.
The question is much more subtle: If there are facts in a document,
which do not connect with facts in other documents, the standardization
of representing such facts does not serve integration. It may serve
interoperability of tools using such facts, but this has lower relevance.
In these cases, the designers of such tools use to make their own
standards, which we DO NOT want to compete with, if they actually do.
For instance, if I document the distance of a set of sherds in an
excavation in one room on a millimeter scale, this can be useful to run
tools that reconstruct from assumptions about the breaking process. But
it will not be of relevance to relate this set to another set in another
room. This is not a question of intuition,*but asking the experts
exactly why and what they query*. This we have done always in the past,
Steve should well remember...
It may be of relevance if there exists a common pattern, which indicates
a kind of process common to other sets, that might be of interest. We
are then in a realm of pattern generalization, and categorical
reasoning, rather than relative position. This poses then the question,
which generalization is adequate to solve this problem.
If a community of practice documents relative position, then the first
question is not to make a general model of relative position, but to
carefully analyze form and utility of this practice.
Please let me remind you that the CRM owes its compact form to a set of
criteria to reject proposals of lower relevance. Costis Dallas had been
among the designers of these principles. Without these, we would not
have survived the third meeting.
If we have now the opinion that anything some group documents should be
in the CRM, without asking for the use, we should discuss this in the
Meeting.
May I further remind you, that the CRM does NOT disallow to document
something it does not model.
I hope you allow me to argue based on such principles, my apologies, I
thought it was still self-evident in the Group.
Best,
Martin
On 2/16/2020 12:52 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
I have the same intuition on this. It is a similar line to the
language question. If people document it and use it, then it does not
seem to be the role of the SIG to say that it is not interesting for
documentation or integration. Surely it is the specialists who know
this, and the conceptual modellers who must find a means of accommodation?
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 7:35 PM Christian-Emil Smith Ore
mailto:c.e.s@iln.uio.no>> wrote:
I find the answer surprising. It is not up to us to define what is
important or not to query a database. If the archaeologists
document this way, we are not in a position to say, “Hey, it is of
no interest to query a database with such information so you
should not document in this way”.
On should also remember that the AP11 is used to record such facts
found during in an excavation., that is, AP11.1 may well be ‘on
top of’, ‘under’ and can be used as long as the matter is
considered as archaeological structures, which relative position
is used to infer AP14.
Currently I have discussed this with 3 archaeologist in Norway and
Keith, Achille and Gerald.
We all live on Earth where the gravity force makes up and down
well defined.
Best,
Christian-Emil
*From:* Crm-sig mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Martin Doerr
mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>>
*Sent:* 06 February 2020 14:55
*To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Relative position under and over -
adjusted text
Dear All,
My impression is that the issue is too complex to result in a
simple set of foundational relations, and we lack the expertise.
There is a thematic series in the ER Conferences about spatial
reasoning, a small part of which I have seen,
with an immense diversity of models. I'd recommend not to continue
discussion without an expert in this area, or someone reading into it.
The relations Christian-Emil lists below are foundational terms of
topology, with clear logical definitions.
I would also argue, that "over", "under" has no relevance for
querying integrated data sets, but is relevant to locally
confined, specialized reasoning. I argue therefore, that is is out
of scope.
If there could be found a general notion of geometric closeness,
that may be important in order to
Re: [Crm-sig] Relative position under and over - adjusted text
I have the same intuition on this. It is a similar line to the language question. If people document it and use it, then it does not seem to be the role of the SIG to say that it is not interesting for documentation or integration. Surely it is the specialists who know this, and the conceptual modellers who must find a means of accommodation? On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 7:35 PM Christian-Emil Smith Ore < c.e.s@iln.uio.no> wrote: > > > I find the answer surprising. It is not up to us to define what is > important or not to query a database. If the archaeologists document this > way, we are not in a position to say, “Hey, it is of no interest to query a > database with such information so you should not document in this way”. > > On should also remember that the AP11 is used to record such facts found > during in an excavation., that is, AP11.1 may well be ‘on top of’, ‘under’ > and can be used as long as the matter is considered as archaeological > structures, which relative position is used to infer AP14. > > Currently I have discussed this with 3 archaeologist in Norway and Keith, > Achille and Gerald. > > We all live on Earth where the gravity force makes up and down well > defined. > > > Best, > > Christian-Emil > > > -- > *From:* Crm-sig on behalf of Martin Doerr < > mar...@ics.forth.gr> > *Sent:* 06 February 2020 14:55 > *To:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Relative position under and over - adjusted text > > Dear All, > > My impression is that the issue is too complex to result in a simple set > of foundational relations, and we lack the expertise. There is a thematic > series in the ER Conferences about spatial reasoning, a small part of which > I have seen, > with an immense diversity of models. I'd recommend not to continue > discussion without an expert in this area, or someone reading into it. > > The relations Christian-Emil lists below are foundational terms of > topology, with clear logical definitions. > > I would also argue, that "over", "under" has no relevance for querying > integrated data sets, but is relevant to locally confined, specialized > reasoning. I argue therefore, that is is out of scope. > > If there could be found a general notion of geometric closeness, that may > be important in order to retrieve datasets that may contain more detailed > topological terms in other representational frameworks. > > The question what is not a stratigraphic unit I regard as important, and > I'd recommend to discuss your observations with archaeologists in the next > Meeting. > > All the best, > > Martin > > > On 2/4/2020 10:00 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > In the Berlin November meeting 2018, I suggested that one should > generalize 'AP11 has physical relation' from CRMarcheo to CRMsci so that it > could be used for all layered structures but also for cuts done in > archaeological excavations. It became clear during the discussion that the > scope of 'AP11 has physical relation' was strictly limited to the > physical relation between layers and surfaces observed in archaeological > excavations. The AP11.1 is used to type the relation e.g. over, under, > mortar layers, one structure modified by another (eg a grave > cut into another grave etc.), that is, every relation that can be used as > the basis for the chronology of the layers. > > The remaining issue is how to model the physical relations between > physical objects/features which are not naturally modelled as instances > of 'A8 Stratigraphic Unit'. In many of the 597 archaeological excavations > sets I have analysed there are objects and features which I hesitate to > model as instances of 'A8 Stratigraphic Unit' like modern structures > natural formations, roots etc. > > > Some relations can be expressed indirectly through the location of the > objects, that is, by the properties of E53 Space: > > P89 falls within (contains): E53 Place > > P121 overlaps with: E53 Place > > P122 borders with: E53 Place > > P157 is at rest relative to (provides reference space for): E18 Physical > Thing > > P168 place is defined by (defines place) : E94 Space Primitive > > P171 at some place within : E94 Space Primitive > > P172 contains : E94 Space Primitive > > > There is no property about a general relative position of two instances of > E53 Place. It is hard to see how to model the standard spatial relations > like 'over' and 'under' we find in the documentation. Most of > the documentation (I have seen) is about situations on Earth, where up > and down is determined by the gravitation. One could
Re: [Crm-sig] Relative position under and over - adjusted text
Dear All, My impression is that the issue is too complex to result in a simple set of foundational relations, and we lack the expertise. There is a thematic series in the ER Conferences about spatial reasoning, a small part of which I have seen, with an immense diversity of models. I'd recommend not to continue discussion without an expert in this area, or someone reading into it. The relations Christian-Emil lists below are foundational terms of topology, with clear logical definitions. I would also argue, that "over", "under" has no relevance for querying integrated data sets, but is relevant to locally confined, specialized reasoning. I argue therefore, that is is out of scope. If there could be found a general notion of geometric closeness, that may be important in order to retrieve datasets that may contain more detailed topological terms in other representational frameworks. The question what is not a stratigraphic unit I regard as important, and I'd recommend to discuss your observations with archaeologists in the next Meeting. All the best, Martin On 2/4/2020 10:00 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: Dear all, In the Berlin November meeting 2018, I suggested that one should generalize 'AP11 has physical relation' from CRMarcheo to CRMsci so that it could be used for all layered structures but also for cuts done in archaeological excavations. It became clear during the discussion that the scope of 'AP11 has physical relation' was strictly limited to the physical relation between layers and surfaces observed in archaeological excavations. The AP11.1 is used to type the relation e.g. over, under, mortar layers, one structure modified by another (eg a grave cut into another grave etc.), that is, every relation that can be used as the basis for the chronology of the layers. The remaining issue is how to model the physical relations between physical objects/features which are not naturally modelled as instances of 'A8 Stratigraphic Unit'. In many of the 597 archaeological excavations sets I have analysed there are objects and features which I hesitate to model as instances of 'A8 Stratigraphic Unit' like modern structures natural formations, roots etc. Some relations can be expressed indirectly through the location of the objects, that is, by the properties of E53 Space: P89 falls within (contains): E53 Place P121 overlaps with: E53 Place P122 borders with: E53 Place P157 is at rest relative to (provides reference space for): E18 Physical Thing P168 place is defined by (defines place) : E94 Space Primitive P171 at some place within : E94 Space Primitive P172 contains : E94 Space Primitive There is no property about a general relative position of two instances of E53 Place. It is hard to see how to model the standard spatial relations like 'over' and 'under' we find in the documentation. Most of the documentation (I have seen) is about situations on Earth, where up and down is determined by the gravitation. One could argue that the documentation should contain x,y,z coordinates, but it does not always do, especially documentation earlier then 1990. The problem is similar to the temporal ordering, where the issue is easier since it is one-dimensional. I am happy if somebody could point to a solution in the CRM. If not we should make this into an isssue. Best, Christian-Emil ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- 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
[Crm-sig] Relative position under and over - adjusted text
Dear all,? In the Berlin November meeting 2018, I suggested that one should generalize 'AP11 has physical relation' from CRMarcheo to CRMsci so that it could be used for all layered structures but also for cuts done in archaeological excavations. It became clear during the discussion that the scope of 'AP11 has physical relation'? was strictly limited to the physical relation between layers and surfaces observed in archaeological excavations. The AP11.1 is used to type the relation e.g. over, under, mortar layers, one structure modified by another (eg a grave cut into another grave etc.), that is, every relation that can be used as the basis for the chronology of the layers. The remaining issue is how to model the physical relations between physical objects/features which are not naturally modelled as instances of ?'A8 Stratigraphic Unit'. In many of the 597 archaeological excavations sets I have analysed there are objects and features which I hesitate to model as instances of ?'A8 Stratigraphic Unit'? like modern structures natural formations, roots etc. Some relations can be expressed indirectly through the location of the objects, that is, by the properties of E53 Space: P89 falls within (contains): E53 Place P121 overlaps with: E53 Place P122 borders with: E53 Place P157 is at rest relative to (provides reference space for): E18 Physical Thing P168 place is defined by (defines place) : E94 Space Primitive P171 at some place within : E94 Space Primitive P172 contains : E94 Space Primitive? There is no property about a general relative position of two instances of E53 Place. It is hard to see how to model the standard spatial relations like 'over' and 'under' we find in the documentation. Most of the documentation (I have seen) is about situations on Earth, where up and down is determined by the gravitation. One could argue that the documentation should contain x,y,z coordinates, but it does not always do, especially documentation earlier then 1990.? The problem is similar to the temporal ordering, where the issue is easier since it is one-dimensional. I am happy if somebody could point to a solution in the CRM. If not we should make this into an isssue. Best, Christian-Emil ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
