[Crm-sig] CRMarcheo Typos
van Leusen, P.M.
p.m.van.leusen at rug.nl
Wed Nov 7 00:18:29 EET 2018
No, a find should not normally be modeled as a stratigraphic unit, because
the latter is intended to represent chronologically separable processes
such as cutting and filling. In most cases the embedded objects are
deposited together with soil as a single bulk deposit, so do not represent
an A8 by themselves.
However, examples can be constructed where the deposition of a single
object is distinguishable as an event separate from any preceding and
subsequent stratigraphic units - think of an urn being deposited in a
cremation grave - where the use of A8 would be defensible.
Hope this helps,
On Nov 6, 2018 19:05, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore" <c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no>
Sorry for the typos and generally confusing text. Here is a hopefully a
AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)
Domain: A8 Stratigraphic Unit
Range: A8 Stratigraphic Unit
My issue was about finds as objects. That, how do one model physical
relations between finds (and also modern objects like the pipe). Can a find
be both an object and an A8 Stratigraphic Unit? Double instanciation? The
find being an instance of A8 Stratigraphic Unit as long as it is not
*From:* Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Christian-Emil
Smith Ore <c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no>
*Sent:* 06 November 2018 16:19
*To:* crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo
I am working on a mapping from Norwegian excavation databases to
CRM/CRMarcheo. The sets use relations like over/under between layers and
other A8 Stratigraphic Units. A question: Can a find be modeled as an
instance of A11 and what about a modern drainage pipe/ditch?
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig