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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
