Dear Mika,
I support your separation of the world of things and the world of minds.
I think it is crucial to understand this
relationship, which is highly complex. See also "Embodiment" by Wolfgang
Tschacher et al. who provides ample
evidence of a much tighter interaction than classical AI and philosophy
had assumed.
We develop the CRM strictly on an empirical-scientific base. The idea
being, that the world of minds
is accessible to our interpretation through the world of things, as long
as we do not resort to telepathy.
This can be utterances, bodily expressions, activities that allow us to
infer motivations or inconsistencies
with uttered convictions etc. , nowadays even "liedetectors" or brain
activation images.
The latter fall under the current scope of the CRM, if relevant groups
document in data structures such terms.
It is much more difficult to talk about clearly identifiable entities
for the world of the mind, and therefore
rarely appear as datastructures useful to integrate knowledge on. For
instance, Stephen Hennicke has
discussed recently in his PhD the concept of actual "will" to pursue a
plan in contrast to "expressions of will".
Recently, it appears to me more and more important to understand the
world of the mind not just as isolated
individuals caught in their own brains, but as members of a social group
which exchange their inner experiences and
influence each other by their attitudes up to the degree of global
changes of behavior.
In addition, social-historical research has a strong focus on collective
behavior, which can only be described
in statistical terms, formal or informal. Whereas the KR formalism
allows to describe facts feeding statistics,
the statistics and its models are mathematically different. Therefore
the CRM simply cannot deal with them technically.
As a remark, I'd argue that "Subject" in both senses, the experiencing
human or the topic of an information object,
is not a class, but must be modelled as relationship?
Best,
Martin
On 20/2/2016 3:39 πμ, Mika Nyman wrote:
Dear all,
Some pieces of information and comments:
1. For information on how to apply CIDOC CRM or FRBRoo to Intangible
Cultural Heritage, this is the right list.
CIDOC has also a Working Group for Intangible Cultural Heritage. If
someone has a broader interest in how to document ICH, that can be
discussed on the mailing list of that group. The CIDOC ICH WG aims to
develop a vocabulary, standards and guidlines for documentation of
ICH. The chair of the WG is Dr. Manvi Seth from the National Museum
Institute, New Delhi, [email protected]. If you want to be added
to the mailing list of the WG, please send me a note to
[email protected] and I will send you an invitation to
join the list. I have myself only a minor role in the group, but I
administer the mailing list.
2. A while ago (in 2012) I participated in a project to create a
conceptual model for archives in Finland. My specific interest was to
connect that model to the CIDOC CRM and the FRBRoo. The project was
based on the conviction, that the foundation for a conceptual model
for archives is the mandate, discourse and practices of archives and
the archives community. In other words, the starting point was not
existing metadata schemata and how to map those to other schemata, but
rather what archivists think and do and how they see their
professional roles within their national archival tradition compared
to the archival traditions in other countries. In parallel, there were
separate processes to create cataloguing rules, to create a data model
for a new information system and to link archival data to the Finna
service, which is a national version of Europeana.
In one of the models that were produced in that project, the archival
classes were distributed among five fields:
Temporal Entities
Extents (in space and time)
Three types of Persistent Items:
- Actors
- Things
- Conceptual Objects
These five fields are derived from the CIDOC CRM. A disturbing feature
was that some classes such as Activity and Subject crossed the border
of fields. In the draft model they belong in some way to Temporal
Entities, in another way to Conceptual Objects. After the conclusion
of the project I wanted to look deeper into this. To get more clarity
to the duality of classes like Activity and Subject I have been
working on a domain independent Metamodel that can be applied to CIDOC
CRM, FBRBoo and archival models.
Two terms I use in the Metamodel are the World of Things and the World
of Minds. An example: In the last days there has been student protests
in Delhi and all over India caused by the arrest of a student leader,
Kanhaiya Kumar from the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Those
demonstrations can be documented on two levels: in the World of Things
as external activities but also in the World of Minds in the
subjective field(s). The World of Things and the World of Minds form
separate contexts. Different structures apply to each of them. Each
must be approached through a different set of questions. A question
like "What did NN really mean" is related to the World of Minds. "Who
were the lawyers that physically assaulted and mishanled KK in the
Patiala House Court" is related to the World of Things. The Internal
Experience of Kanhaiya Kumar being kicked and beaten by enraged
lawyers is different from the External Experience that can be captured
by journalists' cameras, although Internal and External Experiences
are interrelated. One distinction that is of relevance in the mental
sphere is the distinction between Identification and Predication. Both
are fundamental mental capabilities. A key interest in developing the
Metamodel has been how to bridge statements and stories. Semantic web
models and systems are statement oriented. Statements are based on
Identification and Predication. They express our understanding of the
world, but this understanding is, additionally, used in temporally
sequenced discourses and narratives.
My attempt has not been to present or describe the Metamodel here. I'm
trying to formulate these thoughts in an article for the Iranian
Farhang-e muse (Culture and Museum) journal. We (meaning especially
some museum professionals in Iran) are also trying organize an
international workshop in Teheran, where these questions could be
discussed in depth. This workshop could be hosted by the University of
Art in Teheran. If you have the interest and opportunity to
participate in the workshop individually or through your project or
organization, please let me know. There has also been a suggestion to
arrange a Workshop in Teheran specifically on the theme of ICH. These
two initiatives could be merged.
These comments fall outside of the scope of refining the CICOC CRM
model and its extensions. I apologize if they also fall outside of the
scope of the CIDOC CRM mailing list.
Best regards!
Mika
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mika Nyman, Suomenlinna Sea Fortress A3, 00190 Helsinki, Finland
[email protected]
puh/tel/phone +358 44 324 0004
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 19.2.2016 12:43, Carlisle, Philip wrote:
Hi all,
I’m resending this as it didn’t appear to get through.
As you may know the Arches Project has been using the CRM as the
backbone for a cultural heritage inventory system. This is working well
and is being implemented by many projects.
One such project now wants to use Arches to record intangible heritage
and so needs to create resource graphs, based on an ontology, in order
to do this.
Can the CRM be used to represent the intangible heritage? If not does
anyone know of an ontology that can?
Phil
*Phil Carlisle*
Data Standards Supervisor
Data Standards Unit, Listing Group
Historic England
The Engine House
Fire Fly Avenue
Swindon
SN2 2EH
Tel: +44 (0)1793 414824
http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/
http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/
We are the public body that looks after England's historic environment.
We champion historic places, helping people to understand, value and
care for them, now and for the future. Sign up to our enewsletter to
keep up to date with our latest news, advice and listings.
HistoricEngland.org.uk Twitter: @HistoricEngland This e-mail (and any
attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are
not the views of Historic England unless specifically stated. If you
have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify
the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in
any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic
England may become publicly available.
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
Center for Cultural Informatics |
Information Systems Laboratory |
Institute of Computer Science |
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
|
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
|
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
--------------------------------------------------------------
