At the Getty, we have exactly this issue as well, but would extend it to at least gender. We feel that these are not intrinsics, and thus like the group membership pattern, especially for citizenship/nationality, as many people are multi-national over their lifetimes. Religions, as added by Martin, are another good example. One might add profession to the list as well – the set of people who are diplomats do not have the potential to act collectively, only individually within the context of their shared profession.
While the distinction between government and citizenry is debatable, the “church” and its followers, we see no potential for all males, females or other genders across all time to act collectively and would prefer a consistent pattern for these otherwise very similar modeling issues. Rob From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Doerr <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 7:00 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E74 Group (from LRMoo discussions) 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]><mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Pat Riva <[email protected]><mailto:[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: E39 Actor Superclass of: E40 Legal 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: E21 Person 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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 | --------------------------------------------------------------
