[Crm-sig] CRMarcheo -embedding

Christian-Emil Smith Ore c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no
Fri Mar 26 16:49:49 EET 2021

You are quite correct, it would be a 2-dimentional embedding. In the 2D world a pencil stroke is a unpassable hindrance.

On the other hand  AP 9 is not a total property. And also not all persons can give birth at least not now.


From: Achille Felicetti <achille.felicetti at pin.unifi.it>
Sent: 26 March 2021 11:30
To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore
Cc: crm-sig
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] CRMarcheo -embedding

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?


Il giorno 26 mar 2021, alle ore 09:27, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>> 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.

  *   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?]


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/20210326/fa1744a9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list