Excavation fields

elena

Dears,
In numismatic object, in the field for Excavation, I can only see the year of the campaigne, not the name or the place of the archaeological intervention, and this is not ok.

Also, in activities -> excavations, there is not a field for the name of the archaeological intervention, I just have this:

Excavation place (that can not refer to an archaeological site, as it stops in the geographical tree)
Director
Date
Code
It is needed:
a field for register the individual name of the intervention.
an entity (as University of Cadiz, Reshef enterprise, or wherever).
a field for a site or a street or a reck

Thanks!!!
@Manuel Gozalbes @Maria Alc @Ruth @rca @Alex @PaCo

Alex

elena I can only see the year of the campaigne, not the name or the place of the archaeological intervention, and this is not ok.

You right!, it's a forgotten change for the Excavation field when the old Findspot numisdata279 was changed to Immovables tchi1... the field is pointing to the old Findspot instead the new Immovables. Thanks for reporting it.

So, it was fixed in the ontology for v6.6.5

6.6.5 | 2025-07-17T10:15:52+02:00

Update your installation to get it.

The other changes will need more discussion... I will back.

Best

elena

Thank you!
Let's see if it's possible to add the field for the name of the archaeological intervention too...
All the best

Manuel Gozalbes

Hello Elena. Sorry for the delay in replying, but this is an important issue that needs to be thought.
Actually, I agree with everything you say. But that's not the point. The real issue would be to prepare a more complete excavation section. Precisely in relation to the tch model, an intervention section has been developed which, in fact, could function as a general section valid for any type of activity that involves the affectation of heritage elements. Excavation is precisely a type of intervention that is part of a wider set of activities that implies heritage modifications.
The plan would therefore be to make a more general, more complete section, which would be the same as intervention [rsc550] used in relation to tch and tchi. This would allow the contents of different models to be compatible. Such a general record would also serve in numisdata to describe laboratory interventions on coins related with their metal composition. It would all be in the interventions section, but a typology is necessary to distinguish excavations from metallographic analysis or restorations, etc.
What do you think?

elena

Is a good plan but it seems it would be needed a large and thinking way to arrive at that point.
So I would propose to add just the field for the name in excavations meanwhile. That way, it would be founctionally and correct as we work in the section for interventions.
And I have a question too… when all is set up in interventions, will the data from excavations will be moved automatically to the new section?

Manuel Gozalbes

elena And I have a question too… when all is set up in interventions, will the data from excavations will be moved automatically to the new section?

Hopefully, that will be the plan. Anyway I think that, at a first moment, it will possible to have both models active to check how things work.

Alex

Manuel Gozalbes it will possible to have both models active to check how things work.

I knew you were going to say that... therefore, I made the changes and I add another field for «Other images» by my own...

It was done in:

6.6.5 | 2025-07-18T09:28:22+02:00

Update your installation to get it.

Best

elena

Good. Let's go for it!