[Crm-sig] CRMarcheo Typos

Christian-Emil Smith Ore c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no
Wed Nov 7 13:23:45 EET 2018

?Dear all,

Thank you for the response.

1) Based on my theoretical knowlegde of archaeological excavations, I was surprised and somewhat confused when I saw that a find could have these physical relations in the actual template.  So your answers and also  CRMarcheo are consistent with my view.

2) I discussed the issue with 3 of the archaeologist working in the project today. It turned out that according to their knowledge  these physical relations in the template between finds was not used at all. It is an example of a template inherited from somebody else (Swedes?) and poorly maintained. As we all know it is easier to add classes and properties than deleting them.



From: Achille Felicetti <achille.felicetti at pin.unifi.it>
Sent: 06 November 2018 23:53
To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore
Cc: crm-sig; van Leusen, P.M.
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo Typos

Dear Christian-Emil,

I tend to agree with Martin and Martijn.

Although the semantic boundaries between finds and layers could in some cases be ambiguous and in some ways undecidable, there is usually a clear distinction (operated by archaeologists) between the object and the stratigraphic unit in which the object itself is embedded. Talking about physical objects/material things incorporated or embedded within one or more stratum/a is, in my opinion, a better and more clear way to render the scenario you describe.

Therefore, I would go for AP18 + A7 or AP15 + S10 in CRMarchaeo.


Il giorno 6 nov 2018, alle ore 23:18, van Leusen, P.M. <p.m.van.leusen at rug.nl<mailto:p.m.van.leusen at rug.nl>> ha scritto:

Hi christian-emil,
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<mailto:c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no>> wrote:

Sorry for the typos and generally confusing text. Here is a hopefully  a better text:

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 moved?


From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr>> on behalf of Christian-Emil Smith Ore <c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no<mailto:c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no>>
Sent: 06 November 2018 16:19
To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Subject: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo

Dear all,

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<mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>

Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20181107/205eb7f6/attachment.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list