Issue 446: The nature of A1 Excavation Process Unit
In the 45th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 38th FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting and in the context of discussing issue 283 (superproperties to CRMarchaeo properties) the sig resolved to declare AP4 produced surface a subproperty of P108 has produced. To achieve that the domain of AP4 –namely A1 Excavation Process Unit –should be made a subclass of E12 Production.
So the sig decided to raise a new issue regarding the nature of A1 Excavation Process Unit (isA E12 Production vs. isA S1 Matter Removal).
In the context of this new issue, all properties connecting A1 Excavation Process Unit to other CRM classes should be examined to determine that both they and that their superproperties are compatible with the newly postulated semantics for A1 Excavation Process Unit.
- AP1 produced (was produced by) [D: A1 Excavation Process Unit, R: S11 Amount of Matter]
- AP2 discarder into (was discarded by) [D: A1 Excavation Process Unit, R: S11 Amount of Matter]
- AP5 removed part or all of (was partially or totally removed by) [D: A1 Excavation Process Unit, R: A8 Stratigraphic Unit],
- AP10 destroyed (was destroyed by) [D: A1 Excavation Process Unit, R:S22 Segment of Matter]
Heraklion, October 2019
Posted by CEO on 5/3/2021
Here is the homework for issue 446
The nature of A1 Excavation Process Unit
Overall Issue Topic:
The sig’s decision to declare AP4 produced surface a subproperty of P108 has produced, affected the semantics postulated for the class in the domain of AP4, namely: A1 Excavation Process Unit should be made a subclass of E12 Production. As it now stands, A1 isA S4 Observation (isA E13) AND isA S1 Matter Removal.
In view of that, the semantics of the properties pointing to/from A1 also need to be re-examined. Their relation to superproperties in the CRM universe too.
To make AP4 produced surface (was surface produced by) a subproperty of P108 has produced (was produced by)
Introduce a new class S?? Rigid Human-Made Physical Feature analog to S20 Rigid Physical Feature and make A10 a subclass of this new class, see figure 2.
Make A10 Excavation Interface a direct subclass of E53 Place and E25 Human-Made Feature, see figure 3.
Make A10 Excavation Interface a direct subclass of E25 Human-Made Feature in addition, see figure 4.
There are pros and cons for all three. Alternative 1 requires a new class defined in analogue with S20. However, S20, as it is defined today, comprises both non human-made and human-made features. So this class should be a subclass of S20 or S20 has to be changed to comprise only non human-made features. The latter implies a kind of disjointness and should be ruled out. Alternative 2 is also problematic for similar reasons.
Alternative 3 seems to be the best solution. Also, as GH argues, in excavation documentation it is not always clear whether a referred structure is a pre-excavation surface or the approximating surface made by the excavators. So it will be preferable to model it as an S20 having later the opportunity to specify it more (to either A8 or A10), or leave it as S20. So the proposal is to leave A10 as a subclass of AS20 and and in addition make it a subclass of E25 Human-Made Feature.