Dear All,
This is a complex issue.
Firstly, we cannot support in the CRM Collective Agent or E74 Group
being the complement of Person under Agent/ Actor. This violates the
Open World condition, that definitions of classes must be indentifiable
by positive criteria, and that any set of subclasses may be extended
when we learn more about the world.
Secondly, reducing the scope of E74 Group is a non-monotonic change,
causing backwards incompatibility.
Thirdly, we should always be aware that the CRM is not a terminological
system, but classes are meant to be domain and range of properties.
Reducing the definition of a class is justified when it helps avoiding
obviously unintended models.
4) The question is, if a narrower definition of E74 helps avoiding
confusing use of properties, or only satisfies a classification.
CRM classes should be, in question of doubt, more inclusive than exclusive.
The discussion, if a government represents itself or its citizens
clearly shows, that it is not useful for the CRM to draw a line in which
the representation question is resolved in a particularly unambiguous
way. It is also not useful to apply principles
(as formulated in our new guide lines that Christian-Emil cited) that
require intimate knowledge of the object. Archaeologists will hardly
know such details in many cases, but lots of evidence of collective
behavior.
Therefore, we apply a principle of potentiality: Having the potential to
act collectively. May be this is not explicit enough in the definition
of E74.
The requirement to have a name is, in my opinion, overly strict, and in
archaeological cases widely inaccessible.
The question if a "nation" is or is not an instance of E74 creates a
typical conflict between competing classification systems.
I think the essence of what we have discussed in Cologne was if there
are unifying criteria that would exclude per se a collective behavior.
I would draw a line between individual behavior that exhibits
similarities without requiring interaction and behavior that is
substantially interaction based. In that sense, being German or Greek or
Christian or Buddhist or atheist would be an individual classification.
Being a Greek citizen however not. A Roman-catholic "christianity"
participating in the clerical care would be a group, as well as a
spontaneous no-name gang. A "nation" may or may not maintain ties that
enable or have lead to collective action, such as migrations. One may
distinguish those participating in a community from those being born or
raised in a community but acting outside as independent individuals.
"Atheists" may hardly be considered as a Group ever.
Interesting are cases of social groups suffering persecution, often
falsely accused of acting collectively against the interests of others.
I would not require an organized leadership for E74.
I have rather the impression that we will need E74 to remain superclass
of Collective Agent. We may more think of relaxing "legal body" to
Collective Agent, than reducing E74.
Thoughts?
Best,
Martin
On 5/9/2018 11:38 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
Hello
The issue ws discussed in the Cologne meeting. The changes in yellow
do not fullfil the rquirement
"Propose to modify the scope note of E74 Group so that it clearly
corresponds to LRM-E8 Collective Agent. To do this any groups of
people not having agency, such as national, religious, cultural,
ethnic groups, must be excluded from the scope of E74".
Members of a E74 Group are E39 Actors. Thus an instance of E74 Group
can be a member of a E74 Group. This is exactly the case of IFLA itself.
In LRM "Collective Agent (LRM-E8) A gathering or organization of
persons bearing a particular name and capable of acting as a unit".
Therefor IFLA cannot be modelled as a LRM-E8. An implication is that
IFLA cannot be modelled as a LRM-E6 Agent, since an instance
of LRM-E6 Agent has to be an instance of LRM-E7 Person and/or LRM-E8
Collective agent accordin to the scope note of LRM-E6.
As Martin once pointed out, ethnic groups have been be given a
collective responsibility by others not only their leaders. Nation is
a problematic polysemic word and should be used with care, see The
modeling principles p. 63
(http://cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CM%20Principles%20Word%20v.0.1.2.docx).
Best,
Christian-Emil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Pat Riva
<[email protected]>
*Sent:* 07 May 2018 06:27
*To:* CRM-SIG
*Subject:* [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E74 Group (from LRMoo discussions)
Hello all,
This issue is not quite new, we discussed E74 in the context of
working on LRMoo at the Cologne meeting. This proposal results from
the resolution we favoured at the time.
ISSUE: Definition of E74 Group, add text to scope note of E21 Person
In the entity hierarchy E74 Group is a subclass of E39 Actor, and a
superclass of E40 Legal Body, as well as of F11 Corporate Body and F39
Family from FRBRoo (LRMoo). E39 Actor is equal to LRM-E6 Agent, which
is the superclass for LRM-E8 Collective Agent (which is the superclass
of F11 Corporate Body and F39 Family). Structurally then, E74 Group
should be equal to LRM-E8 Collective Agent. However, the scope note of
E74 Group is broader than LRM-E8 and includes certain groups that are
not actually agents (LRM-E6) and which would not actually be instances
of E39 Actor.
Propose to modify the scope note of E74 Group so that it clearly
corresponds to LRM-E8 Collective Agent. To do this any groups of
people not having agency, such as national, religious, cultural,
ethnic groups, must be excluded from the scope of E74. In this way
there is no problem with E74 as a subclass of E39 Actor or superclass
of E40, F11 and F39. Nothing needs to change formally, however certain
instances attributed to this class may be incorrect. New and changed
text in yellow.
E74 Group
Subclass of: E39Actor
Superclass of: E40Legal Body
Scope note: This class comprises any named gatherings or organizations
of two or more people that act collectively to produce some
intentional result for which they can be collectively considered
responsible.
In the wider sense this class also comprises
holders of official positions viewed collectively, which used to be
regarded in certain contexts as one actor, independent of the current
holder of the office, such as the president of a country. In such
cases, it may happen that the E74 Group never had more than one member.
A joint pseudonym (i.e., a name that seems
indicative of an individual but that is actually used as a persona by
two or more people) is a particular case of E74 Group.
A gathering of people becomes an E74 Group when it exhibits sufficient
organizational characteristics to be collectively held responsible for
actions performed together. These might be communication, creating
some common artefact,a common purpose such as study, worship,
business, sports, etc. Occasional groups and groups that are
constituted as meetings, conferences, congresses, expeditions,
festivals, fairs, etc, are examples of E74 Group as long as they are
identified by a specific name, rather than a generic description of
the gathering, and can act as a unit (such as by publishing their
proceedings, or approving a report). These collective actions may be
performed by representatives selected by the whole, rather than by all
individual members acting together.
Married couples and other concepts of family are regarded as
particular examples of E74 Group.
Examples:
*
Exxon-Mobil (E40)
*
King Solomon and his wives
*
The President of the Swiss Confederation
*
Nicolas Bourbaki
*
Betty Crocker
*
Ellery Queen
Properties:
_P107_*has current or former member (is current or former member of):
E39 **Actor*
*(P107.1 kind of member: E55**Type)*
ISSUE: Decision to not duplicate CRM classes in LRMoo results in
deprecating F10 Person as it is equivalent to E21 Person.
Consequence: Present F10 scope note includes additional text not
present in the E21 scope note.
Propose to add the text in yellow highlight to E21. It seems generally
applicable with little modification. Text in green highlight in F10
scope note is valid, but may be better elsewhere, as in the LRMoo
overview.
E21 Person
Subclass of: E20 Biological Object
_E39 _Actor
Scope note: This class comprises real persons who live or are assumed
to have lived.
Legendary figures that may have existed, such as Ulysses and King
Arthur, fall into this class if the documentation refers to them as
historical figures. In cases where doubt exists as to whether several
persons are in fact identical, multiple instances can be created and
linked to indicate their relationship. The CRM does not propose a
specific form to support reasoning about possible identity.
In a bibliographic context, a name presented
following the conventions usually employed for personal names will be
assumed to correspond to an actual real person (E21 Person), unless
evidence is available to indicate that this is not the case. The fact
that a persona may erroneously be classified as an instance of E21
Person does not imply that the concept comprises personae.
Examples:
+
Tut-Ankh-Amun
+
Nelson Mandela
F10 Person
Equal to: E21Person
Scope note: This class comprises real persons who live or are assumed
to have lived. Bibliographic identities or personae assumed by an
individual or a group should be modelled as F12 Nomen and connected to
the relevant person or group with an instance of F35 Nomen Use
Statement, even if nothing more can be said about this person or
group. In a bibliographic context, a name presented following the
conventions usually employed for personal names will be assumed to
correspond to an actual real person (F10 Person), unless evidence is
available to indicate that this is not the case. The fact that a
persona may erroneously be classified as an instance of F10 Person
does not imply that the concept comprises personae.
Examples: Margaret Atwood
Hans Christian Andersen
Queen Victoria
Pat Riva
Associate University Librarian, Collection Services
Concordia University
Vanier Library (VL-301-61)
7141 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, QC H4B 1R6
Canada
+1-514-848-2424 ext. 5255
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
