Issue 282: mappings of CRMarceo and EH

Starting Date: 
2015-05-22
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

The outcome of the issue 267 during the 33rd CIDOC CRM- 26th FRBR crm-sig meeting  was the following:

- A unified view should be added  in the text of CRMarcheo.
- It should be clear what CRMarcheo does not enforce.
- EH-CRM is more specific while CRMarcheo is more general.
- Achille should send communicate with Keith for mapping CRMarcheo and EH – CRM. Also Achille should check with Gerald the coverage with archaeological records and CIDOC CRM, the classes that are instantiated.

-The scope note of A3 should be revised.

- The crm-sig decided that that PIN Prato will be responsible for the CRMarcheo from now on.

The issue 267 will be closed and the discussion for CRMarcheo will continue to the issue 282.

Nuremberg, May 2015

 

 

 

Current Proposal: 

In the 36th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 29th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig discussed the mapping between EH CRM and CRMarchaeo and whether a physical feature is a Place.  A possible ‘Rigid Physical Feature’ was proposed for S20 (issue 311) as it is necessary for archaeological stratigraphic units (they need stability of matter condition). It was suggested that S20 should become subclass of E26 (not equivalent). The crm-sig assigned to MD to write a scope note and to change the label.

Heraklio August 2016

In the 38th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 31st FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, resolving the issue 311, the crm-sig accepted the proposed changes by Steve  about the second paragraph of scope note of S20. 

The issue  about the definition of Rigid Physical Feature is closed. 

The mappings between CRMarchaeo and EH is still open

Heraklion,  April 2017

In the 40th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 33nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, it is assigned to Achille to contact Keith May 

Cologne, January 2018

Posted by Keith May on 16/11/2018

..........

I have been in (brief) contact with Achille Felicetti recently about trying to re-engage on the question of the uses and relationships between CRMarchaeo and CRM-EH.

As I said to Achille,

“I am not entirely sure whether there is a need to do any actual “mapping” between CRMarchaeo to CRM-EH, but rather just agree some statement regarding their mutual compatibility, due to their being derived from the “parent” ontology of CIDOC CRM? This statement is of course slightly dependent upon any further revisions you may have planned for CRMarchaeo. I am also interested to know where you consider the recent SIG changes to ‘deprecate’ the Allen operators has any impact on CRMarchaeo – and how, (if I understood rightly what Steve Stead said in Edinburgh)?”

...........

Posted by Martin on 16/11/2018

Dear Keith,

Welcome back! Of course, a mapping from CRM-EH to CRMarcheo would be extremely useful, analyzing any deep differences, once we have now, also for that reason, given the double nature of place and thing to physical things. Since now CRMarcheo represents a more recent development, I'd prefer to have a sort of migration path from CRM-EH to CRMarcheo, possibly enriching the latter, and/or a mapping how to query CRM-EH via CRMarcheo. Interesting will be to see any diverging points of view.

Teleconferencing may be not easy. Difficult to guarantee a connection, and seeking connection sometimes is disruptive to the meeting. We can try, without promise.

WRT to Allen operators, they go out of CRMbase. Do you have examples of use? That would be important input, because we really lack them.
 

Posted by Keith May on 27/11/2018

..........................

Most importantly I wanted to at least send some response to your question “WRT to Allen operators, they go out of CRMbase. Do you have examples of use? That would be important input, because we really lack them”

WRT the Allen Operators, as you know I have been working for a number years with Ceri Binding and Doug Tudhope at USW and would draw your attention to lots of Ceri’s work regarding Temporal operators in archaeological records. This derived expressly from our use of the Allen operators in The CRM-EH. I’ve attached an example ESWC2010 paper I found most useful from Ceri’s earlier work, but my understanding is that this has also featured in the more recent ARIADNE interoperability work too, in things like the mapping of coin dates across different languages using text references to e.g. Roman emperor names and associated mappings to agreed date ranges.

I’ve copied Ceri and Doug in to this as in case Ceri has more recent and direct examples of using Allen operators.

But it is also an area of research that I would like – time willing (sic) - to pick up on again myself, and I imagine it might be exactly the sort of thing we could/should investigate further in any discussions of how best to take forward the relationship (and indeed recent history) between CRM-EH and CRMarchaeo.

Posted by Keith May on 29/11/2018

Hope the CRMarchaeo presentation/discussion at CRM-SIG goes well now.

I would add, that hopefully under ARIADNEplus, or other initiatives (e.g. at a CAA or an EAA conference, or FISH – COST?) we can arrange some meeting(s) that I can actually attend to discuss some of the specific stratigraphic – i.e. spatio-temporal; and spatio (physical); and temporal, relationship questions and issues raised by use of Allen operators and the newer spatio-temporal period properties?

I appreciate that depends upon me actually being able to attend too! J

 

Posted by Martin on 29/11/2018

All Allen operators can be expressed by multiple superproperties to the new temporal primitives!

Vocabularies of stratigraphic relation types would be useful!

Posted by Keith May, on 29/11/2018

Noted,

Thanks all

In the 42nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 35th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, during the discussion about this issue, Achille commented that Keith May was contacted before meeting. He was not entirely sure whether there is a need to do an actual “mapping” between CRMarchaeo to CRM-EH, but rather just agree on some statement regarding their mutual compatibility, due to them having been derived from the “parent” ontology of CIDOC CRM. He was also interested to know whether the recent SIG’s decision to deprecate the Allen operators and its impact on CRMarcheo has been considered and what that impact was.

MD commented that since now CRMarcheo represents a more recent development, it is preferable to have a sort of migration path from CRM-EH to CRMarcheo, possibly enriching the latter, and/or a mapping on how to query CRM-EH via CRMarcheo.
AF proposed that the sig  take into account the paper entitled “Implementing archaeological time periods using CIDOC CRM and SKOS” by Ceri Binding .
The crm-sig has assigned MD with providing a migration between time primitives and Allen operators and introducing deprecation information in CRM base and  has decided that the complete text, including the mappings, is to be uploaded on the crm-site, under best practices.

Berlin, November 2018