Issue 474: Editorial check of changes in CRMarcheo

ID: 
474
Starting Date: 
2020-02-18
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Current Proposal: 

Posted by CEO on 18/2/2020

Dear all,

A small task force, Achille Felicetti, Gerald Hiebel and I, has  suggested changes to the CRMarcho document. The new version number is  1.5.0.  The SIG should go through the document and check the changes (as was done for the  CRMbase in Heraklion, October). They are all marked with track changes. The document  can be accessed at  http://www.cidoc-crm.org/crmarchaeo/ModelVersion/version-1.5.0

In the 46th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 39th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting; The sig went through the editorial changes proposed by CEO, AF and GH (version 1.5.0 – draft) with Editorial status: In progress since [21/2/2020]. A summary of the changes accepted and relevant discussion points can be here. The proposed examples in the above document are accepted in principle. Changes in the scope notes/examples/quantification of properties etc. are thoroughly listed under Appendix.  The file used in the meeting may be found here.

Athens, February 2020

Posted by Steve on 26/2/2020

PFA

HW for AP25 and AP26

 

CB note: have not discussed in 46th crm-sig

 

Posted by Martin on 1/6/2020

Dear All,

Here my attempt

OLD:

AP9 took matter from (provided matter to)
Domain:                            A4 Stratigraphic Genesis
Range:                              S10 Material Substantial
Superproperty of: O18 altered (was altered by)
 
Quantification:    one to many (0,n:0,1)

Scope note:      The slabs from the collapse of the upper storey’s paved floor of Room 5 of West House in ancient Akrotiri (S10) provided matter to the formation of two slab deposit layers on the ground floor (A4).
 
Example:           
 
In First Order Logic:

AP9(x,y) ⊃ A4(x)
AP9(x,y) ⊃ S10(y)
AP9(x,y) ⊃  O18(x,y)

NEW:

Scope note:      This property associates an instance of A4 Stratigraphic Genesis with an instance of S10 Material Substantial, from which      

                            matter was incorporated in the instance of A8 Stratigraphic Unit produced by this genesis.
 
                            The instance of A8 Stratigraphic Unit produced by an instance of A4 Stratigraphic Genesis can be documented by using the    

                            property AP7 produced (was produced by) and should be distinct from the instance of S10 Material Substantial from which

                            matter was taken. The latter instance will be modified or cease to exist due to the respective genesis process.
 
Example:         The formation of two slab deposit layers on the ground floor of Room 5 of the West House in ancient Akrotiri (A4) took matter

                          from The slabs of the collapsed upper storey’s paved floor (S10)

Posted by Martin on 1/6/2020

    Dear Achille,

Please also correct the typo in A4:

"Properties:

AP7 produced (was produced by): A8 Stratigraphic Unit or A3 Stratigraphic Interface

AP9 took matter from (provided matter to): S10 Material Substantial

"
should be:

"Properties:

AP7 produced (was produced by): A8 Stratigraphic Unit

AP9 took matter from (provided matter to): S10 Material Substantial
"

Posted by Martin on 1/6/2020

Continuing with AP7:

OLD:

AP7 produced (was produced by)

Domain:              A4 Stratigraphic Genesis
Range:                A8 Stratigraphic Unit
Subproperty of:  O17 generated

Quantification:    one to many (0,n:0,1)
 
Scope note:         This property identifies the A8 Stratigraphic Unit that was produced during an A4 Stratigraphic Genesis Event.

  Examples:    The layers of pumice and volcanic ash, about one metre thick, covering the ancient city of Akrotiri (A8) was produced by the
                            explosion of the ancient Santorini’s volcano (A4) (see Fig. 5, 8).

In First Order Logic:

AP7(x,y) ⊃ A4(x)
AP7(x,y) ⊃ A8(y)
AP7(x,y) ⊃ O17(y)

NEW:
Scope note:         This property identifies an instance of A8 Stratigraphic Unit that was produced by an instance A4 Stratigraphic Genesis. One
                                instance of A4 Stratigraphic Genesis may produce more than one instances of A8 Stratigraphic Unit.

  Examples:         The explosion of the ancient Santorini’s volcano (A4) produced The layers of pumice and volcanic ash, about one metre thick,
                                covering the ancient city of Akrotiri (A8) [see Fig. 5, 8]

Posted by Martin on 20/2/2021

Example of AP11

Dear All,

Creating the examples for AP11 together with Athina Kritsotaki, I encountered a problem with the label.

I propose to change:

OLD: AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)

NEW: AP11 has physical relation to (is physically related by)

 Here my examples

Examples for AP11 has physical relation to:

 

The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to wall C (A8) has type runs up to (E55). [as observed initally, see below] (Hodder 1999)

The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to wall C (A8) has type a wall-slot cut for (E55). [as observed finally, see below] (Hodder 1999)

The wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to wall D (A8) has type abuts on (E55). (Hodder 1999)

The wall D of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to the floors B’ (A8) has type on top of (E55). (Hodder 1999)

[Ian Hodder 1999, pp 40-42, describes an example of stratigraphic reasoning and knowledge revisions: “..In the following case taken from Catalhoyuk....we need to look at the plan of Building 1 in figure 3.4. During the excavation of this building in 1996 we came down onto a series of floors at B within the walls C, D, etc. Our first impression was that the floors at B ran up to and were later than wall C…. a later pit F had cut through wall C and floors B. This meant that we could test the idea that the floors were later than the wall. Observation showed that the test could be verified. The C floors did indeed run up to the wall as suggested in inset L (fig 3.4). But as more evidence was put together, it did not fit. We came to realize that the floor B’ was earlier than rubble beneath D. Wall C clearly abutted and was later than wall D. Thus, as we understood the building, the B floors were later than wall C which was later than wall D. And at the same time the B’ floors, which were the same floors as the B floors, were earlier than wall D. The evidence did not make sense……we realized…there was a break between the B floors and the wall C. Our mistake was to assume that the floors on either side of wall C were contemporary. But they were not. Floors were added in the north side of wall C after the south side had gone out of use…”]

 

Posted by Martin on 20/2/2021

I continue now proposing these examples consequently for AP13, AP14:
with analogous change of label for AP13. The format for AP14 is a challenge. I hope you like it {?}

for AP13 has stratigraphic relation to (is stratigraphically related by)

The production of the floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (E12) has stratigraphic relation to the production of wall C (A8) has type after (E55). [as observed initally, see AP11] (Hodder 1999)

The production of the floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to the production of wall C (A8) has type before (E55). [as observed finally, see AP11] (Hodder 1999)

The production of the wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to the production of wall D (A8) has type after (E55). [See AP11] (Hodder 1999)

The production of the wall D of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to the production of the floors B’ (A8) has type after (E55). [See AP11] (Hodder 1999)

And for AP14 is justified by:

{ The production of the floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (E12) has stratigraphic relation to the production of wall C (A8) has type before (E55) }

          is justified by   

{ The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to wall C (A8) has type a wall-slot cut for (E55) }   [See Ap11, AP13]  (Hodder 1999)

{ The production of the wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to the production of wall D (A8) has type after (E55) }

          is justified by

{ The wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to wall D (A8) has type abuts on (E55) }   [See Ap11, AP13]  (Hodder 1999)

Posted by Achille on 22/2/2021

Your changes seem perfect to me, the labels in this way are much clearer, more readable than before and much closer to the way archaeologists talk about these entities.

Posted by Herald on 22/02/2021

thank you for the work on the issue 474 and also the starting point (issue 480)  to change the domain and range of AP14 to the relation and not the type assignment.  

As Achille stated it is much clearer and the change on AP14 is an essential one.

Posted by Martin on 26/02/2021

Here my comprehensive proposal for AP11, changes in yellow:

OLD

AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of)

Domain:              A8 Stratigraphic Unit

Range:                A8 Stratigraphic Unit

Quantification:    one to many (0,n:0,1)

Scope note:      This property identifies the physical relationship between two A8 Stratigraphic Units. The type of physical relationships found between stratigraphic units in archaeological documentation is documented through the property AP 11.1 has type

Example          The layer of burned remains of the log building (in Søndre gate, Trondheim, Norway) (A8) has physical relation (is physical relation of) under the foundation of the church of St. Clements (A8).

In First Order Logic:

AP11(x,y) ⊃ A8(x)

AP11(x,y) ⊃ A8 (y)

AP11.1 (x,y,z) ⊃ [AP11 (x,y) ∧ E55(z)]

Properties:                        AP11.1 has type: E55 Type

NEW

AP11 has physical relation to (is physically related by)
Domain:              A8 Stratigraphic Unit
Range:                A8 Stratigraphic Unit
Quantification:    many to many (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:      This property identifies the physical relationship between two A8 Stratigraphic Units. The described relationship may be between two adjacent instances of A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit sharing a common interface (instance of A3 Stratigraphic Interface), between an instance of A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit and one of its adjacent interfaces, such as human-made cuts or earthquake induced faults, or even between two intersecting interfaces.

The type of physical relationships found between stratigraphic units in archaeological or geological documentation is documented through the property AP 11.1 has type. The type of physical relationship typically constitutes strong evidence for the sequence of genesis of the related stratigraphic units, which can be documented by the property AP13 has stratigraphic relation to (is stratigraphically related by). The type may either pertain to a relative topology, such as the one being “under” the other, or to the fine-structure of the interface between them, such as a layer of concrete having filled out earlier micro-cavities in various directions in the interface before solidifying.

Examples         The layer of burned remains of the log building (in Søndre gate, Trondheim, Norway) (A8) has physical relation the foundation of the church of St. Clements (A8) has type is under (E55)

The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to wall C (A8) has type runs up to (E55). [as observed initally, see below] (Hodder 1999)

The floors at B of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to wall C (A8) has type a wall-slot cut for (E55). [as observed finally, see below] (Hodder 1999)

The wall C of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to wall D (A8) has type abuts on (E55). (Hodder 1999)

The wall D of the building 1 in Çatalhöyük, Turkey (A8) has physical relation to the floors B’ (A8) has type on top of (E55). (Hodder 1999)

In First Order Logic:

AP11(x,y) ⊃ A8(x)

AP11(x,y) ⊃ A8 (y)

AP11.1 (x,y,z) ⊃ [AP11 (x,y) ∧ E55(z)]

Properties:                        AP11.1 has type: E55 Type

Posted by Achille on 26/02/2021

Dear Martin,

The new note scope looks great. My only doubt concerns the English adjective "adjacent” which seems to indicate only proximity relationships in a linear sense but not in a vertical one, in the case of overlapping elements.
For completeness I would write "adjacent or superposed".
I also think we need to put a hypen between earthqyake and induced: "earthquake-induced”.

But native English speakers will certainly be more specific than me :-)

The rest seems perfect to me.

Posted by Christian-Emil on 27/02/2021

Hi

The suggested sentence 

" The described relationship may be between two adjacent instances of A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit sharing a common interface (instance of A3 Stratigraphic Interface), between an instance of A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit and one of its adjacent interfaces, such as human-made cuts or earthquake induced faults, or even between two intersecting interfaces"

is somewhat long. A11 is relating two instances of A8. My concern is the verb "may". Is this meant as "limited to" or "may be but is not limited to"?

Posted by Martin on 27/02/2021

Hi Christian-Emil,

Indeed, to be discussed. My opinion is, that this is an exclusive list of possibilities. Either or or. If this is linguistically correct or can be improved, should be answered by native English speakers. If it is archaeologically correct, by archaeologists, including you. My opinion is that non-adjacent units should be excluded. There is, however, a question of sub- and superlayers. This is a logical problem.

Earthquake faults are interesting features. They may cut through many layers, showing how after the cut the sequence continues dislocated.
 

Posted by Martin on 27/02/2021

Hi Achille,

My understanding of "adjacent" is "in touch", no direction implied. "superposed' may be distant, and not in touch...

In the 49th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 42nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig went through the editorial changes proposed by CEO, AF, GH, MD & AK.

The properties discussed are: 

  • AP25: scope-note, range, superproperties, FOL for transitivity (HW: CEO)
  • AP26: scope-note, range
  • AP7: scoe-note, example (HW: get the excavation records for Akrotiri by Eleni Ch.-CB)
    HW: AK to update the example with the data Eleni Ch will provide [New issue]. 
  • AP9: scope-note, references
  • AP11: scope-note, label of forward going property (AP11 has physical relation to), examples
  • AP13: examples (label of referred classes need reworking; to be discussed in an evote)
  • AP14: examples need to be reworked and put to an evote, the labels of the domain and range properties are not correct -to be resolved by issue 480 (HW: MD)
  • AP5: superproperty
  • AP12: example

A summary of the changes accepted in the scope notes/examples/quantification of properties etc. and the relevant discussion points are thoroughly listed here. The file used in the meeting may be found here.

 

Overall decision for CRMarchaeo: it will be managed through the CIDOC Document Manager -just like CIDOC CRM. 

HW: SdS to get AF an account for that. 

March, 2021

Meetings discussed: