CRMarchaeo Issues Updates Achille Felicetti VAST-LAB, PIN, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy

Issue 184 – Examples in CRMarchaeo Version 1.4.7 uploaded on CIDOC CRM website Diagrams revised New examples from Eleni Christaki integrated Classes and properties revised Content arranged in new template

Issue 282 – Mapping with CRM-EH Keith May 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 there being derived from the “parent” ontology of CIDOC CRM? Interested to know where you consider the recent SIG changes to ‘deprecate’ the Allen operators has any impact on CRMarchaeo – and how Allen’s operators: examples in a paper Martin CRMarcheo represents a more recent development 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. Martin to provide migration path between time primitives and Allen operators and introduce deprecation information in CRM core

Issue 283 – Superproperties A1 Excavation Process Unit Subclass of: E6 Destruction S4 Observation With A1 as Domain AP1 produced -> S11 Amount of Matter AP2 discarded -> S11 Amount of Matter Ap4 produced surface -> S20 Rigid Physical Feature AP5 removed part or all of -> A8 Stratigraphic Unit AP6 intended to approximate -> A3 Stratigraphic Interface AP10 destroyed –> S22 Segment of Matter Considerations A Destruction “destroys”, does not “produce” Especially “amounts of matter” or “surfaces”

Issue 283 – Superproperties A1 Excavation Process Unit Subclass of: E81 Transformation S4 Observation P123 resulted in (from E81) – S.P. of AP1 produced -> S11 Amount of Matter AP2 discarded -> S11 Amount of Matter Ap4 produced surface -> S20 Rigid Physical Feature P124 transformed (from E81) – S.P. of AP5 removed part or all of -> A8 Stratigraphic Unit O8 Observed (from S4) – S.P. of AP6 intended to approximate -> A3 Stratigraphic Interface P93 took out of existence (from E81) S.P. of AP10 destroyed –> S22 Segment of Matter (Previous S.P: P13 Destroyed)

Issue 283 – Superproperties AP3 investigated (was investigated by) Domain: A9 Archaeological Excavation Range: E53 Place Proposed subproperty: O8 observed (was observed by) No superproperty expressing this meaning with E53 Place as range. Proposal: Range to be changed to E27 Site (P156 occupies -> E53 Place) New Scope note: This property identifies the 3D excavated volume instance of E27 Site, i.e., a three- dimensional volume, that was actually investigated during an A9 Archaeological Excavation. Examples: The Archeological Excavation investigating the Stratigraphic Volume Unit (2) excavated the site which the Stratigraphic Volume Unit (2) was part of (P46).

Issue 283 – Superproperties AP11 has physical relation (is physical relation of) Domain: A8 Stratigraphic Unit Range: A8 Stratigraphic Unit Proposed superproperty: the only available in core are P122 borders with (??) ; P121 overlaps with (??). Both are very specific propertyes, while AP11 is quite generic … AP13 has stratigraphic relation Domain: A5 Stratigraphic Modification Range: A5 Stratigraphic Modification Expresses temporal relationships, a combination of P118, P119, P120, P121 … very specific to be superproperties. Proposal: make AP13 and AP11 core properties (??) AP14 justified by (is justification of) Domain: AP13.1 has type (type of stratigraphic relation) Range: AP11.1 has type (type of physical relation) Domain and range are 2 properties … ??

Issue 283 – Superproperties AP15 is or contains remains of (is or has remains contained in) Domain: A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit Range: S10 Material Substantial Proposed superproperty: P45 consists of Comment: the closest one seems to be the O22 partly or completely contains (range. S22 Segment of Matter), but domain and range do not exactly coincide. The best alternative seems to be P45 consists of. P45 is Ok for the “is” part of the property, not for the ”contains”. But S22 is a feature and could not contain objects. AP19 is embedding in (contains embedding) Domain: A7 Embedding Range: A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit Proposed superproperty: ??? Comment: what is the real meaning of this? A7 is a subclass of Condition/State: can a state be contained in a physical thing?

Issue 283 – Superproperties AP20 is embedding at (contains) Domain: A7 Embedding Range: E53 Place Proposed superproperty: ??? Comment: Can a place that contains a condition/state? AP21 contains (is contained in) Domain: A2 Stratigraphic Volume Unit Range: E18 Physical Thing Proposed superproperty: P89i contains or O22 partly or completely contains (is part of) Comment: the range of O22 is S20 Rigid Physical Feature and not E18. I wonder if this could be a valid superproperty … I didn’t find the concept of “a physical thing containing another thing” in CIDOC proper (P89 is not enough since range is E53 Place).

Issue 283 – Superproperties No particular problems with: AP7 produced (O17 generated) AP8 disturbed (O18 altered) AP9 took matter from (O18 altered) AP12 confines (O7 contains or confines) AP16 assigned attribute to (P40 assigned attribute to) AP17 is found by (O8 observed) AP18 is embedding of (is embedded) (P44 has condition)

Issue 337 – Excavation Interface Gerald + Achille New A10 Excavation Interface class included in CRMarchaeo documentation Issue: inconsistency between AP12 confines and new APxx confines property detected AP12 could not have the new A10 as domain since it has A3 Stratigraphic Interface as domain and A10 is not a subclass of A3 (but of S20 Rigid Physical Feature) No common superclass for A3 and A10 for which a same property could be attached Decision: no need for a new APxx property: O7 confined could be used O7 has as range S10 Material Substantial but this is consistent with S22 Segment of Matter and after is dug out it corresponds to an S10 A1 Excavation Process Unit -> AP4 produced surface -> A10 Excavation Interface A10 Excavation Interface -> O7 confined -> S22 Segment of Matter

Issue 338 – Excavation Area and Plans A10 Excavation Area: not needed (AP3 + E53 Place enough) Axx Excavation Permission -> Activity Plan Ayy Permission Declaration -> Intention to Apply Model for Plans -> to be included in the new CRMsoc Collaborate to CRMsoc specifications to implement proposed classes integration

Issue 368: E34 Inscription and E37 Mark Scope notes of E34 Inscription: “ … comprises recognisable, short texts attached to instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing”. We need to make sure that this class is consistent enough with the concept of inscription in the epigraphic sense provided by CRMtex, so as not to risk incurring conceptual ambiguities Harmonisation between CRMtex classes and CIDOC CRM E34 Inscription (and, contextually, with its superclass “E37 Mark”) is needed Redefinition of E34 and E37 classes maybe necessary

Issue 368: E34 Inscription and E37 Mark Inscriptions in epigraphy “… comprises recognisable, short texts attached to instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing” Brevity or length of an inscription is not among its main characteristics Res Gestae Divi Augusti Gortyn Law Code Too vague and undefined

Issue 368: E34 Inscription and E37 Mark CIDOC CRM E34 Inscription -> Conceptual object “Non-material products of our minds and other human produced data” Not consistent with the essence of an epigraph and its “materiality” The study of epigraphy typically moves from the analysis of the physical features of inscriptions before getting to their archaeological, palaeographic, linguistic and historical characteristics Etymology of the word “epigraph” indicates as a fundamental condition of its identity its being written on something Much more similar to CRM classes created for the description of physical features -> E25 Man-Made Feature

Issue 368: E34 Inscription and E37 Mark E34 Inscription: an epigraphic challenge Ambiguity between written text and carrier Entries in CIL Description of the OBJECT on which inscriptions occur History of the OBJECT (discovery place, editors, etc.) Discipline itself has not reached consensus on what an inscription actually is Durability, material, form, length, uniqueness, authenticity, … “Inscription is the object of epigraphic investigation” (in contrast e.g. with “papyri”, investigated by papyrology)

Issue 368: E34 Inscription and E37 Mark TX1 Written Text. Subclass of E25 Man-Made Feature intended to describe a particular feature (i.e., ‘set of glyphs’) created (i.e., written) on various kinds of support, having semiotic significance and the declared purpose of conveying a specific message towards a given recipient or group of recipients. Tentative scope note for E34 Inscription: «Subclass of TX1 Written Text intended to describe recognisable pieces of written texts attached to instances of E19 Physical Objects. An inscription is unidirectional, in the sense that does not anticipate that a response will be provided to the sender, and has the characteristic of not being addressed to a person or to a group but to a collectivity» (inspired by Panciera’s definition of Inscription)

Issue 368: E34 Inscription and E37 Mark E37 Mark scope note “This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing by arbitrary techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, etc.” In epigraphy, a mark is very precisely identified according with the technique they are created (marking, impressing) A mark can be a set of letters. Distinction with Inscription is in the technique only Subclass of E25 Man-made Feature instead of E36 Visual Item This class comprises symbols, signs, signatures or short texts applied to instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing by specific techniques in order to indicate the creator, owner, dedications, purpose, etc

Future Work Refine properties and superproperties definition Additional examples from Olivier Marlet and others to be added CRMarchaeo + CRM-EH harmonisation (to be continued) Test case: Intrasys data from Norway (Christian-Emil) Create RDF encoding of the new CRMarchaeo as soon as it becomes stable

Thank you Achille Felicetti VAST-LAB, PIN, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Italy achille.felicetti@pin.unifi.it