Feature #1648

Relative Chronological/Spatial relation between two artifacts

Added by Jona Schlegel about 1 year ago. Updated 3 months ago.

Target version:
Start date:
Estimated time:


This would allow us to say that one graffito (artifact) was created above another graffito (artifact).


Related issues

Follows OpenAtlas - Feature #1734: Forms: refactor functionsClosed2022-06-06Actions
Follows OpenAtlas - Feature #1647: Composition of artifacts and human remainsClosed2022-06-08Actions



Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 1 year ago

  • Category set to Backend
  • Status changed from New to Assigned
  • Assignee set to Stefan Eichert
  • Target version set to Wishlist

Thank you for reporting, I assigned it to Stefan in the first step, kindly asking him to evaluate the implementation with CIDOC.
After that we can think about how to implement it in the user interface, estimate the development time and than move it from the wishlist to the actual roadmap.


Updated by Stefan Eichert about 1 year ago

  • Subject changed from Spatial relation between two artifacts to Relative Chronological/Spatial relation between two artifacts

One way to accomplish that, without using any CRM extensions (e.g. CRMarchaeo) would be to map this with relative chronological properties.

In general:

"Persistent Item" (E77) - "was brought into existence" (P92i) - "Beginning of Existence" (E63) - "starts after the end of" (P183i) - "Beginning of Existence" (E63)


Graffito 2 (E22) - was produced by (P108i) - spraying of Graffito 2 (E12) - starts after the end of (P183i) - spraying of Graffito 1 (E12)

This way it is documented that Graffito 2 (in a relative chronological way) was produced after Graffito 1.

This property corresponds to the following Allen temporal relation (Allen, 1983) : {before}, respectively inverse: {after}.

We could implement this for every physical thing in OpenAtlas using the general cidoc mapping above respectively on the Artifact level using the latter one (in order to map and link the production of human made objects with the actors involved).

This would require to create an intermediate E63 resp. E12 entity connected to the physical thing that then has further links to respective entities (E.g. involved actors, events, temporal relations) or to define a custom property shortcut.

In order to document that both grafitti also spatially overlap, in addition we should also add the relation P121 "overlaps with" to their location entities E53.

A combination of these would then mark the stratigraphic relation between them.

I am not sure about the CRM Archaeo extension: If it is still actively developed or to be approved soon? Using its stratigraphic relations would semantically work too but if we want to connect the creation event with actors and further nodes, we would need the above mapping anyway.
@Jona would this work for you? If you want to extract the data in a direct relation then, it would be just a matter of once defining a query and you could then get all stratigraphically connected entities that overlap with one query.


Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 1 year ago

  • Status changed from Assigned to Acknowledged
  • Assignee deleted (Stefan Eichert)
  • Target version changed from Wishlist to 7.7.0

Thanks a lot Stefan for looking into the CIDOC mapping and especially finding a way to do it without using an extension.
I put it on the agenda for the next developer meeting and moved this issue to the roadmap.


Updated by Bernhard Koschiček-Krombholz 11 months ago

  • Assignee set to Stefan Eichert

Updated by Stefan Eichert 10 months ago

  • Assignee changed from Stefan Eichert to Jona Schlegel

see my edits in the comments. best, St.


Updated by Alexander Watzinger 10 months ago

  • Start date changed from 2022-03-01 to 2022-06-07
  • Follows Feature #1734: Forms: refactor functions added

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 7 months ago

  • Status changed from Acknowledged to Assigned

I'm in the process checking the roadmap issues and I'm not sure about the status of this one.
It looks like Stefan made a suggestion (2nd note) and is waiting for feedback from Jona.
But feel free to update this issue in case there was new development.


Updated by Alexander Watzinger 7 months ago

  • Target version changed from 7.7.0 to 7.8.0

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 5 months ago

  • Start date changed from 2022-06-07 to 2022-06-09
  • Follows Feature #1647: Composition of artifacts and human remains added

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 5 months ago

  • Target version changed from 7.8.0 to 7.10.0

Updated by Jona Schlegel 4 months ago

Hi Stefan,
I would like to focus on the spatial relation first rather than the temporal relation to achieve a stratigraphic sequence between the graffiti. So, adding the relation P121 “overlaps with” (as you also already suggested) via the location of a graffito (E53).
This is my reasoning why (see the graphic).
So, because we have the spatial relation between the two graffiti, we can recreate the stratigraphic relation based on the time of creation and the spatial relation.
And even if we only have the information of the time stamp when the graffiti was documented in connection with the location, we should be able to generate the stratigraphic sequence based on this.
Therefore, we would need something like this (also according to the graphic right side):
location of graffito 1 (E53) is overlapped by (P121i) the location of graffito 2 (E53)

In a second comment:
As we are often not certain in INDIGO when a graffito was created, I would also like to include the documentation event rather than the creation event. Generally the documentation event mostly happens after the creation event, but we often don’t know the actual time/ date. The best time to document would be directly after the creation and we could/ should note down if we happen to see the creation of a graffito, but is not often the case.
So using maybe something like (P70) documents would be good but then also linking this documentation event via “starts after the end of” (P183i) like you suggested. But I guess this is a new issue.


Updated by Stefan Eichert 4 months ago

  • Status changed from Assigned to Acknowledged

The "overlaps" property would document that both overlap but without any stratigraphical value. So you do not know which is above the other. Only by applying a chronological level too, you could trace the stratigraphy (see my former comment).
Even if you do not know the creation date of one, you could still map the relative chronology.

The documentation event cannot be linked via P70 as this has E31 as domain. However one could map this with E13 Attribute Assignment or with E7 activity with a certain type E55.


Updated by Alexander Watzinger 3 months ago

  • Status changed from Acknowledged to Assigned
  • Target version changed from 7.10.0 to 7.13.0

I'm not sure what the status of this issue is so question to Stefan: is there a viable way to solve this that we could implement?
In case this is something for the wishlist for later, e.g. when there are new advancements in OpenAtlas and/or CIDOC CRM please put it there, remove yourself as assignee and set the status to Acknowledged.
For now I'm moving this to a later version because in this version we are busy with INDIGO/ARCHE integration which is more urgent.
Anyway, thanks again for looking into this.

Also available in: Atom PDF