Issue 474: Editorial check of changes in CRMarcheo

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 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

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

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 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 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 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.
 

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