Feature #1587
closed
Link artifacts and human remains to places directly
Added by Aleksandra Apic about 3 years ago. Updated about 2 years ago.
Description
Update
With version 7.7.0 it will be possible to link artifacts to place, stratigraphic unit or feature (or leave it as stand alone).
The same goes for human remains which will also be displayed in the artifact tabs from now on.
Original issue text
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.
Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 3 years 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.
Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 3 years 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.
Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 3 years 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.
Updated by
Updated by Alexander Watzinger almost 3 years ago
- Target version changed from 7.1.0 to 7.4.0
- Implications of parallel structure of subunits
- How to keep the user interface clean
Updated by Stefan Eichert over 2 years 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
Updated by Bernhard Koschiček-Krombholz over 2 years ago
- Assignee set to Stefan Eichert
If an artefact is in a place hierarchy (feature-strat-artefact/human), the place can not be changed.
Updated by Stefan Eichert over 2 years 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)
Updated by Alexander Watzinger over 2 years ago
- Target version changed from 7.4.0 to 7.5.0
Updated by Alexander Watzinger over 2 years ago
- Start date changed from 2021-10-06 to 2022-06-07
- Follows Feature #1734: Forms: refactor functions added
Updated by Alexander Watzinger over 2 years 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.
Updated by Alexander Watzinger over 2 years ago
- Status changed from Acknowledged to In Progress
- Assignee set to Alexander Watzinger
- Estimated time set to 16.00 h
Updated by Alexander Watzinger over 2 years 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.
Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 2 years 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.
Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 2 years 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.
Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 2 years ago
- Precedes Feature #1647: Composition of artifacts and human remains added
Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 2 years ago
When working on it I realized that this will also involve a complete rewrite of our existing get_structure functions (which is used e.g. in maps for siblings/parents/child display).
I also thought about how to prevent the tabs from getting too many, maybe we just use one called subunits where we show artifacts, human remains and archeological subunits and also provide buttons to create these.
Another question will be if we remove the module subunit option, with the much more dynamic usage of artifacts, it doesn't make much sense to "draw a line" somewhere anymore.
However, luckily we have a developer meeting where we might find time to discuss this issues.
Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 2 years ago
- Remove subunits module options (for now, maybe we make a more general "user interface/modules" meeting at some point)
- Use an artifact tab to show and create artifacts AND human remains. It's not totally semantically correct but helps to keep the user interface manageable.
Updated by Alexander Watzinger about 2 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
- Status changed from In Progress to Closed
I just finished this feature and it's already in the develop branch.
Since it was the last open feature of this release I guess we make the release in a view days.