Feature #1456


Added by Alexander Watzinger 12 months ago. Updated 11 months ago.

Target version:
Start date:
Estimated time:
16.00 h


The SHAHI project needs to enter objects outside an archeological context.
  • We will implement the (new) objects using the E22 CRM class, accessible via the object tab
  • Already implemented E22 objects for archeological finds will still be handled separately inside the context of archeological sub units



Updated by Alexander Watzinger 12 months ago

  • Description updated (diff)

Updating description after discussing it at meeting. Special thanks to Stefan for looking into it and coming up with a good solution.


Updated by Alexander Watzinger 12 months ago

  • Subject changed from Using objects outside of archeological context to Artificial objects
  • Status changed from Acknowledged to In Progress
  • Assignee set to Alexander Watzinger
  • Estimated time set to 16.00 h

Updated by Alexander Watzinger 12 months ago

Artificial objects are implemented and can be tested at the development demo:

They will be without places/map in the first version because we have to rethink our map presentations before, e.g. should they displayed beside the place geometries or do we display them separately.


Updated by Alexander Watzinger 11 months ago

  • Subject changed from Artificial objects to Artifacts

Updated by Stefan Eichert 11 months ago

I have seen that artifacts have their own type tree. We should discuss if we better use the find type tree for them, as they are actually the same. The difference regards only the fact that finds are conceptually located below strat units and artifacts not. But by definition both are artifacts. Finds could also be listed then in the artifacts/objects tab.


Updated by Alexander Watzinger 11 months ago

@ Stefan: interesting thought, we may can discuss this tomorrow at the workshop


Updated by Bernhard Koschiček-Krombholz 11 months ago

Currently, if a Custom Type is assigned to Artifact, it is not displayed in the view. Will this change until the release of 6.0.0?

And also, did you discuss the type tree? I like Stefans thoughts about the shared type tree.


Updated by Alexander Watzinger 11 months ago

I'm guessing with currently you mean a development stage instance? In develop there is a lot of update SQL involved which you may have only partially and we can look at it together at Thursday.
As for the input from Stefan about joining types for artifacts, which was a very good suggestion, this is already implemented in feature_modules which will be merged to develop as soon as we have adapted the other parts e.g. API.


Updated by Alexander Watzinger 11 months ago

Just tested it in demo-dev and seems to work fine. I added a "My artifact type" for artifacts and it shows at: (didn't bother to add sub-types and will be visible only for today because of the reset script at night).


Updated by Alexander Watzinger 11 months ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Closed

Also available in: Atom PDF