Project

General

Profile

Feature #1587

Link artifacts and human remains to places directly

Added by Aleksandra Apic 12 months ago. Updated 25 days ago.

Status:
In Progress
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Backend
Target version:
Start date:
2022-06-07
Estimated time:
16.00 h

Description

Currently it is not possible to link Artifacts to Places.

Since more than half of our Artifacts are portable objects we do not have
findspots and for those Artifacts that actually have findspots it still would
be more efficient to have preexisting Places to connect them with.

F.e., we have over 100 objects we believe originate from Noth Pakistan. So instead
of having to map/ draw an area on the map for every single object it would be more
efficient to connect the Artifacts with already existing Places
--- Similar to the "Group" feature where it is possible to connect the Artifacts to "owners" like museums
and private collections.


Related issues

Follows Feature #1734: Forms: refactor functionsClosed2022-06-06Actions
Precedes Feature #1647: Composition of ArtifactsAcknowledged2022-06-08Actions

History

#1

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 12 months ago

  • Target version set to 7.1.0
  • Subject changed from Places for Artifacts to Link artifacts to places
  • Category set to CRM
  • Status changed from New to Acknowledged
  • Assignee changed from Alexander Watzinger to Stefan Eichert

Thank you for reporting this.

@ Stefan: I think we already discussed this and agreed to implement. I couldn't find an existing ticket so I assigned this one to you for checking/validating this functionality.

#2

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 12 months ago

@ Stefan: after some digging I'm not so sure anymore. Maybe we talked about something similar like linking finds directly to places? Maybe we can discuss this when in Prague.

#3

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 10 months ago

  • Subject changed from Link artifacts to places to Link artifacts and human remains to places directly
  • Assignee deleted (Stefan Eichert)

When implementing this we will do the same for human remains.

#4

Updated by Nina Richards 10 months ago

+1 Nina

#6

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 8 months ago

  • Target version changed from 7.1.0 to 7.4.0
We discussed it in today's meeting. We still want to implement it but it turned out it needs some more conceptual work and planning. e.g.
  • Implications of parallel structure of subunits
  • How to keep the user interface clean
#7

Updated by Stefan Eichert 7 months ago

I see two possibilites on how to implement this from a conceptual point of view:
Either we say that physical things form part of superior physical things just like features form part of a place (in the archaeological hierarchy) or as described in #1647.
This means that an artifact is part of a superior physical entitity. E.g. a sword is part of a stratigraphic unit.

If we just want to define that an artifact has a current or former location (P53) we could tie this artifact (or any other physical thing) to the location (E53) of any other physical thing.
E.g.

Rosetta Stone (E22) - has former or current location (P53) - location of Nile delta (E53) - is former or current location of (P53i) - Nile Delta (E18)

Still, we need to discuss how to integrate this into the UI

#8

Updated by Bernhard Koschiček-Krombholz 5 months ago

  • Assignee set to Stefan Eichert

If an artefact is in a place hierarchy (feature-strat-artefact/human), the place can not be changed.

#9

Updated by Stefan Eichert 5 months ago

I think the best solution would be to allow for defining an existing place as current or former location of an artifact via P53 that can be selected when entering the artifact information. The mapping would be:

Rosetta Stone (E22) - has former or current location (P53) - location of Nile delta (E53) - is former or current location of (P53i) - Nile Delta (E18)
#10

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 4 months ago

  • Target version changed from 7.4.0 to 7.5.0
#11

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 4 months ago

  • Start date changed from 2021-10-06 to 2022-06-07
  • Follows Feature #1734: Forms: refactor functions added
#12

Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 2 months ago

  • Assignee deleted (Stefan Eichert)
  • Target version changed from 7.5.0 to 7.7.0

Because we already have a lot of changes for sub units in this release I will move this issue to the next release to prevent problems with changing to much at once.
When implementing I will go with Stefan's suggestion to add a field to connect to a place but only if it isn't already in an archeological structure.

#13

Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 1 month ago

  • Status changed from Acknowledged to In Progress
  • Assignee set to Alexander Watzinger
  • Estimated time set to 16.00 h
#14

Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 1 month ago

To summarize: if an artifact or human remains isn't already in a sub unit structure it should be possible to connect it to a place via the CIDOC mapping:

E22 (artifact) -> P53 (has former or current location) -> E53 (place)

One challenge will be that our "places" are under the hood two entities (a physical thing and a place):

E18 (physical thing) -> P53 (has former or current location) -> E53 (place)

So far we could rely on that there was always a one to one relation with P53 between these but with the possibility to also link artifacts with P53 we would have to rewrite many portions of the code to reflect this.
However, if this is what is needed I will look into it.

#15

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 26 days ago

  • Assignee changed from Alexander Watzinger to Stefan Eichert

When looking further into this issue I noticed that we already use links like

E22 (artifact) -> P53 (has former or current location) -> E53 (place)

to make adding GIS data possible. Basically these E53 are saved as "Location of artifact_name".

Now, using additional P53 links which only differ in that their E53 are also linked to an E18 (which we use for places) or not (which is the case for saving GIS data now) would get way to messy and error prone.

One option would be to remove the functionality to geolocate artifacts, instead they can than be geolocated over connected places.
The question than would be how to proceed with already entered GIS data for artifacts. One solution for this could be to add E18 entities for them so it would be like they would have been attached to places like planned.

@ Stefan Eichert, I would need some substantial feedback on this from you so assigning this to you.
Of course we can meet up if this gets too complicated to discuss with issue notes.

#16

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 25 days ago

  • Category changed from CRM to Backend
  • Assignee changed from Stefan Eichert to Alexander Watzinger

After Stefan and Nina kindly took the time to discuss the new development in depth we came to following approach:
Artifacts and human remains can be connected to any place or subunit (but not to multiple) with P46, like:

E18 (physical thing) -> P46 (is composed of) -> E22 (artifact)

This approach offers much flexibility and also keeps the possibility to GIS locate everything on its own.

#17

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 25 days ago

Also available in: Atom PDF