Issue 294: E55 Type relations
Posted by Martin on 28/12/2015
Dear All,
I wish you all a Happy New Year!
Please see this document to discuss properties of E55 Type
for archaeological reasoning
Posted by Øyvind on 6/1/2016
Dear all,
This was an interesting read. I have a question:
I do not understand the logic of the last paragraph in page 2. First they talk about
[1] “a specific time period in which and only in which objects of a given type have been created”
and then they go on to talk about
[2] no finds from other periods.
[2] is much weaker than [1] but is seems to me that [2] is still used as evidence for [1]. I do not argue that is wrong to use it as evidence (there are never proofs in heritage based research of this kind) but I fail to see how it can be seen as a closed world assumption — that is pretty strong.
I think it is a good choice to model it as an implicit restriction, though; the modelling looks fine. It is more the use of “closed world” I wonder about.
As for the choice between modelling of periods as timespans or periods I think this feeds well into the discussion we have on space-time modelling and this document will be useful for the discussions in Prato.
Posted by Wolfgang Schmidle on 6/1/2016
Co-author here. Yes, we use [2] as evidence for [1], and if new evidence is unearthed, the "restricted" statement may turn out to be false.
The "closed world assumption" was only meant as an analogy. We do not argue that a "Restriction" statement in the sense of a bounding box can be inferred from the given "appears in" and "typical for" statements. (Maybe one should also distinguish between the knowledge of the archaeologist and the — possibly incomplete — list of actual "appears in" and "typical for" statements.) Instead, it probably needs to be an explicit new statement, and the inferred statement in Figure 3 should probably have a different name that doesn't suggest anything but an inferred statement.
The point of the Restriction being a timespan rather than a period was, I think, that the sum of periods may not automatically be a period itself. In particular, it may not be identical to the "production of the Paukenfibel" period. However, in Figure 3 we assume that there is at least no temporal gap inbetween. And timespan means more or less the same as spacetime volume here since the area in the example is always the same.
By the way, we have a similar problem in our gazetteer, where we need to express the fact that a given region is part of the union of three other regions.
Posted by Martin on 6/1/2016
Dear Wolfgang,
My opinion to your questions:
Is it more precise to model the sum of periods as a timespan or a period itsself?
It is more precise to model it as a period, in case this period has a common unity criterion.
It is equally more precise to model it as a spacetime volume, but RDF has no construct to describe that
an STV is exactly the sum of a set of components. The same holds for periods.
How should a hiatus be expressed then? So the stopped and later on picked up
usage of the same object. As a second timespan / period attached to the appearance of an object?
I think it needs a negative property. To be discussed with Carlo Meghini.
• Relation of Types and objects that refer to that type: Is it important to have at least
one object for a “appears in” assignment to refer to.
Well, yes for capturing the argument. If the object is described, the "appears in" could be inferred.
I think a "restricted to" would be a good property. It is more than the sum of "appears in". It requires
an argument of having sufficiently dense observation at other times and sites, or historical sources.
Posted by Øyvind on 7/1/2016
Thank you, Wolfgang! This makes sense to me.
The criteria for what is a period have to be decided by the experts. Yet, I think it is pretty clear that the Renaissance Augustus is a different period from the one in antiquity. Connected, but different.
Sent it by Chryssoula to George on 19/7/2016
George
There is an old issue about the relation between period and time. You may find attached all we have about these. Could you make a summary in order to introduce to the sig?
Attachment 1: issue 243 Times and Periods
Attachment 2: Issue 294 E55 Type Relations
Attachment 3: Paper by Philipp Gerth, Wolfgang Schmidle
Posted by George Bruseker on 2/8/2016
I have re read all these and am prepared to reintroduce the issue.
*****************
Initiating Issue:
Martin
May be it's time to propose a link between a period and a type. Very characteristic reasoning in archaeology, biology and geology ("Leitfossil"). Has anybody examples of data structures supporting such data?
***********************************
Two Proposals:
Achille Proposal
(a) E55 Type.PXX objects of a type appear in: E4 Period.
Note: objects of a specific type are ascribed to a specific period: Example: " the
Etruscan fibulae appear in the Etruscan Period"
(b) E55 Type.PXX object of a type define: E4 Period
Note: objects of a specific style define an artistic period:
Example: "the geometric class of vases define the Geometric Period of Greek art"
Wolfgang Proposal
Type with relation
Typical for to Period
Leitfossil, is the object which has been determined to be characteristic to a period thanks to particular analysis, and is definitive for the period. Along with other indications its presence at a spot can help date a context.
(Question – so good documentation practice should always point to who this was determined by and using what technique)
Appears in for Period
Object continues to be used or found in a period, but is not unique and typical for it. The object is not produced in this period
Restricted to:
Defined as the sum of all appears in and typical for relations, proposed to be modelled as a time span (not to make an arbitrary period)
Martin replies:
Is it more precise to model the sum of periods as a timespan or a period itsself?
It is more precise to model it as a period, in case this period has a common unity criterion.
It is equally more precise to model it as a spacetime volume, but RDF has no construct to describe that an STV is exactly the sum of a set of components. The same holds for periods.
How should a hiatus be expressed then? So the stopped and later on picked up
usage of the same object. As a second timespan / period attached to the appearance of an object?
I think it needs a negative property. To be discussed with Carlo Meghini.
posted by Martin on 3/10/2017
Dear All,
I propose to solve issue 294 as follows:
Accept:
a) "E55 Type. restricted to : E4 Period", many-to-one. , IsA appears in
b) "E55 Type. typical for : E4 Period", many-to-one, Isa appears in
c) "E55 Type. appears in : E4 Period", many-to-many.
a restriction to multiple periods to be modelled by an auxiliary period.
a hiatus to be modelled by "not appears in", using Carlo's theory of negative properties.
d) CRMarcheo or CRMSci may define "first appears in", "last appears in". I'd move "restricted to" and "typical for" to CRMarcheo or CRMSci.
In the 39th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 32nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting , the sic accepted MD's proposal and decided to proceed to the definitions of the proposed relations.
Heraklion, October, 2017
In the 41st joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 34th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig assigned to Matteo Lorenzini and George Bruseker the develop the definitions of the properties which have been decided to previous meetings. These are:
a) "E55 Type. restricted to : E4 Period", many-to-one. , IsA appears in
b) "E55 Type. typical for : E4 Period", many-to-one, Isa appears in
c) "E55 Type. appears in : E4 Period", many-to-many.
d) CRMarcheo or CRMSci may define "first appears in", "last appears in".
Lyon, May 2018
Posted by George Bruseker on 20/10/2019
I'll take a kick at that:
a) "E55 Type. restricted to : E4 Period", many-to-one. , IsA appears in
This property connects a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55 Type) to an instance of E4 Period in order to indicate that this kind of object is exclusively found in archaeological contexts related to this period.
This property makes a strong statement with regards to the distribution of the class of object in the archaeological record. The statement would support reasoning, ceteris paribus, that the discovery of an instance of this type of object in an archaeological context would be indicative of the extension of an instance of the related instance of E4 Period over the area of archaeological observation.
Weaker claims can be made using ‘typical for’ and ‘appears in’.
b) "E55 Type. typical for : E4 Period", many-to-one, Isa appears in
This property connects a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55 Type) to an instance of E4 Period in order to indicate that this kind of object is regularly found in archaeological contexts related to this period.
This property makes a moderate statement with regards to the distribution of the class of object in the archaeological record. The statement would support reasoning, ceteris paribus, that the discovery of an instance of this type of object in an archaeological context would be a possible indicator of the extension of an instance of the related instance of E4 Period over the area of archaeological observation.
A stronger claim can be made using ‘restricted to’ while a weaker claim is made using ‘appears in’.
c) "E55 Type. appears in : E4 Period", many-to-many.
This property connects a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55 Type) to an instance of E4 Period in order to indicate that this kind of object is found in archaeological contexts related to this period.
This property makes a weak statement with regards to the distribution of the class of object in the archaeological record. The statement would support reasoning, ceteris paribus, that the discovery of an instance of this type of object in an archaeological context would indicate that a number of instances of E4 Period, in which the type of object is known to appear, may have extended over the area of archaeological observation in question.
Stronger claims can be made using ‘typical for’ and ‘restricted to’ properties.
d) CRMarcheo or CRMSci may define "first appears in", "last appears in".
First appears in
This property connects a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55 Type) to an instance of E4 Period in order to indicate that the first known appearance of this kind of object is related to a particular instance of E4 Period.
This property can be used in order to support reasoning regarding the dating of archaeological contexts and objects. It can help establish conditions for terminus post quem reasoning on archaeological contexts whereby the discovery of an instance of object pertaining to the class would give a date after which the context/object should be dated.
Last appears in
This property connects a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55 Type) to an instance of E4 Period in order to indicate that the flast known appearance of this kind of object is related to a particular instance of E4 Period.
This property can be used in order to support reasoning regarding the dating of archaeological contexts and objects. It can help establish conditions for terminus ante quem reasoning on archaeological contexts whereby the discovery of an instance of object pertaining to the class would give a date beforer which the context/object should be dated.
In the 45th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 38th FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed GB’s HW on the scope notes of relations linking instances of E55 Type to E4 Period: restricted to and typical for. The following decision were been taken for each one. Specifically:
Restricted to: The scope note was accepted as a working definition. HW assigned to MD to rephrase it a bit, going through a genesis event and assessing the period it forms part of.
typical for: The scope note was accepted as a working definition. The scope note should include some quantifying expression to measure the notion of *enough objects belonging to a kind of period*. This is something to put work on. HW was assigned to MD to re draft the scope note
Finally the sig decided that these properties should be added to CRMarchaeo. Furrthermore MD suggested to send an invitation to Alison Wiley(AW) to participate in this discussion (and the sig activities), because she has shown an interest in building an ontology on archaeological excavation. Everyone present was in favor of this proposal. MD is to contact AW.
The minutes of this discussion and the accepted as working definitions scope notes of the above properties can be found here
Heraklion, October 2019
Posted by Martin on 20/2/2020
Dear all,
Here my reworking of the scope notes:
appears in
Domain: E55 Type
Range: E4 Period
Subproperty: appears in
Quantification: many-to-many
Old Scope Note:
This property connects a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55 Type) to an instance of E4 Period in order to indicate that this kind of object is found in archaeological contexts related to this period.
This property makes a weak statement with regards to the distribution of the class of object in the archaeological record. The statement would support reasoning, ceteris paribus, that the discovery of an instance of this type of object in an archaeological context would indicate that a number of instances of E4 Period, in which the type of object is known to appear, may have extended over the area of archaeological observation in question.
Stronger claims can be made using ‘typical for’ and ‘restricted to’ properties.
New Scope Note:
This property associates a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55) to an instance of E4 Period for indicating that objects of this kind have been generated within this period. The generation of such objects may be the result of human, biological, geological or other processes.
This property makes a weak statement with regards to the distribution of the class of object in the archaeological record, but also in geological or paleontological observations: If the genesis of an object of this type can plausibly be assumed to fall within the genesis of the context in which it was found, then the statement made with this property would support reasoning, ceteris paribus, that the genesis period of the find context forms part of or overlaps with one of the instance of E4 Period in which the respective object type has appeared.
Stronger claims can be made using ‘typical for’ and ‘restricted to’ properties.
restricted to
Domain: E55 Type
Range: E4 Period
Subproperty: appears in
Quantification: many-to-one
Old Scope Note:
This property connects a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55) to an instance of E4 Period to indicate that this kind of object is exclusively generated in contexts – archaeological, biological, geological –in this period.
This property makes a strong statement with regards to the distribution of the class of object in the archaeological record. The statement would support reasoning, ceteris paribus, that the discovery of an instance of this type of object in a context would be indicative of the extension of an instance of the related instance of E4 Period over the area of archaeological observation.
Weaker claims can be made using ‘typical for’ and ‘appears in’.
New Scope Note:
This property associates a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55) to an instance of E4 Period for indicating that objects of this kind have exclusively been generated in this period.
This property makes a strong statement concerning the distribution of the kind of object in the observation record: If the genesis of an object of this type can plausibly be assumed to fall within the genesis of the context in which it was found, then the statement made with this property would support reasoning, ceteris paribus, that the genesis period of the find context actually forms part of the related instance of E4 Period, or at least overlaps with it.
In contrast, objects from previous periods may appear in a context because they are still in use, and objects from later periods may have been pushed into an older context.
Weaker claims can be made using the properties ‘typical for’ and ‘appears in’.
typical for
Domain: E55 Type
Range: E4 Period
Subproperty: appears in
Quantification: many-to-one
Old Scope Note:
This property connects a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55 Type) to an instance of E4 Period in order to indicate that this kind of object is regularly found in archaeological contexts related to this period.
This property makes a moderate statement with regards to the distribution of the class of object in the archaeological record. The statement would support reasoning, ceteris paribus, that the discovery of instances of this type of object in an archaeological context would be a possible indicator of the extension of an instance of the related instance of E4 Period over the area of archaeological observation.
A stronger claim can be made using ‘restricted to’ while a weaker claim is made using ‘appears in.
New Scope Note:
This property associates a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55) to an instance of E4 Period for indicating that objects of this kind have been generated in this period in significantly higher numbers and wider distribution, than in other periods.
This property makes a moderate statement concerning the distribution of the kind of object in the observation record: If a sufficient number of objects of this type are found in some context, and their genesis can plausibly be assumed to fall within the genesis of the find context, then the statement made with this property would support reasoning, ceteris paribus, that the genesis period of the find context is likely to forms part of the related instance of E4 Period, or at least overlaps with it. “Sufficient number” means that the density of objects of this kind in the find context is compatible with the general density this kind of object had in the respective period in comparable contexts and deposition history.
A stronger claim can be made using ‘restricted to’ while a weaker claim is made using ‘appears in'.
Posted by Robert Sanderson on 20/2/2020
To play the devil’s avocado … if Stephen is correct that we don’t want to add categorical assertions, then these seem like clear instances of that type of assertion.
Personally, these seem extremely useful … along with many other categorical assertions!
Posted by Martin on 20/02/2020
On 2/20/2020 9:41 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
>
>
> To play the devil’s avocado … if Stephen is correct that we don’t want to add categorical assertions, then these seem like clear instances of that type of assertion.
>
>
>
> Personally, these seem extremely useful … along with many other categorical assertions!
Of course it is a categorical assertion.
In particular the "restricted to" violates the Open World, as any negative statement. The tricky thing is to understand which part of the world has so thoroughly been studied, that we can regard it as "closed".
If I have an object in front of me, I can make compete assertions about features that my senses can normally perceive.
I suspect the cardinality is logically wrong again. If a type of thing is restricted to a period, it is not excluded for all its subperiods.
Needs more thought.
Posted by Martin on 14/02/2021
The issue 294 ended with this open question:
"I suspect the cardinality is logically wrong again. If a type of thing is restricted to a period, it is not excluded for all its subperiods. Needs more thought." http://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-294-e55-type-relations
The definitions are the following:
restricted to
Domain: E55 Type
Range: E4 Period
Subproperty: appears in
Quantification: many-to-one
Scope Note:
This property associates a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55) to an instance of E4 Period for indicating that objects of this kind have exclusively been generated in this period.
This property makes a strong statement concerning the distribution of the kind of object in the observation record: If the genesis of an object of this type can plausibly be assumed to fall within the genesis of the context in which it was found, then the statement made with this property would support reasoning, ceteris paribus, that the genesis period of the find context actually forms part of the related instance of E4 Period, or at least overlaps with it.
In contrast, objects from previous periods may appear in a context because they are still in use, and objects from later periods may have been pushed into an older context.
Weaker claims can be made using the properties ‘typical for’ and ‘appears in’.
typical for
Domain: E55 Type
Range: E4 Period
Subproperty: appears in
Quantification: many-to-one
Scope Note:
This property associates a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55) to an instance of E4 Period for indicating that objects of this kind have been generated in this period in significantly higher numbers and wider distribution, than in other periods.
This property makes a moderate statement concerning the distribution of the kind of object in the observation record: If a sufficient number of objects of this type are found in some context, and their genesis can plausibly be assumed to fall within the genesis of the find context, then the statement made with this property would support reasoning, ceteris paribus, that the genesis period of the find context is likely to forms part of the related instance of E4 Period, or at least overlaps with it. “Sufficient number” means that the density of objects of this kind in the find context is compatible with the general density this kind of object had in the respective period in comparable contexts and deposition history.
A stronger claim can be made using ‘restricted to’ while a weaker claim is made using ‘appears in'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My reasoning:
If a type Y is restricted to a Period A, it is also restricted to any wider Period of A.
The current quantification disallows the type Y to be restricted to any other period. This is equivalent to a minimality requirement for the range of "restricted to".
If we would require minimality, i.e., that there is no smaller Period B, such that B falls within A, and the type Y is actually restricted to B, we require complete knowledge of the appearance of Y in A. Further, a later definition of a smaller period B, with B falls within A, and the type Y actually restricted to B, would invalidate the statement about A.
Both are against the Open World assumption.
The intrinsic violation of the Open World assumption by "restricted to" is already enough: It requires complete knowledge of what happened outside this period. In practice, this is not so dramatic, because creating the same type of some item by chance in a distant context may be very unlikely, if local characteristics of workmanship are included in the type definition, and the expert would not apply the property to trivial items. Also in biology, the same species will never emerge at independent places, even though similar environments may bring about similar species.
Concluding, we need a cardinality many to many (0,n:0,n), BUT we can formulate a minimality axiom:
restricted_to(x,y) AND restricted_to(x,z) => ¬(∃u)[E4(u) ˄ restricted_to(x,u) ˄ ¬ (P132(u,z) ˄ P132(u,y)) ]
In other words, if a type X is restricted to a Period y and a Period z, any other period restricted X is restricted to must overlap with both y and z. As a consequence, the minimal Spacetime Volume will be the intersection of all periods known to restrict X.
Opinions?
In the 49th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 42nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig accepted MD's proposal to change the quantification of appears in, restricted to, typical for to many-to-many, as well as redraft their scope notes. The properties will be assigned the following AP numbers:
- AP29 appears in
- AP30 restricted to
- AP31 typical for
The new scope notes are working definitions. The relations among types (issue 407) be taken into account, together with skos and other standards.
HW: SdS to edit them.
Post by Christian-Emil Ore (21 March 2022) [evote]
Dear all,
As the issue number indicates issue 294 has been with for a while.
In the 49th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 42nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig accepted MD's proposal to change the quantification of appears in, restricted to, typical for to many-to-many, as well as redraft their scope notes. The properties will be assigned the following AP numbers:
- AP29 appears in
- AP30 restricted to
- AP31 typical for
The new scope notes are working definitions. The relations among types (issue 407) be taken into account, together with skos and other standards.
HW: SdS to edit them.
The edited version of the scope notes can be found here:
You are invited to vote on the scope note texts (not the name of the inverses which will be a separate e-vote)
YES if you accept the edited texts
NO if you don't accept the edited texts
VETO if you think a e-vote is not ok at the current state
The voting is open until 4th April.
Best,
Christian-Emil
Post by Martin Doerr (21 March 2022) [evote]
Yes!
Martin
Post by Gerald Hiebel (21 march 2022) [evote]
YES
Best,
Gerald
Post by George Bruseker (22 March 2022) [evote]
Yes, to the reformulated text.
With this caveat, that the underlined in the formulation, " This property associates a kind of object (documented as an instance of E55) to an instance of E4 Period for indicating that objects of this kind have been generated within this period," sounds stylistically awkward. Could just switch out for 'in order to indicate that'?
Best,
George
Post by Pat Riva (26 March 2022) [evote]
Yes
Pat Riva
Post by Christian-Emil (4 April 2022)
Dear all,
The result of this e-vote is
8 yes
0 no
0 veto
Best,
Christian-Emil
Issue closed