Dear all, I support the change and would also like to point out that this is a local problem with the English language. For instance, in most other Germanic languages the distinction is clear, such as in German: Mann / Mensch or in Scandinavian where we have various versions of mann / menneske.
As for the specific label to be chosen, I leave that for the native English speakers. All the best, Øyvind > Am 12.04.2019 um 13:45 schrieb George Bruseker <[email protected]>: > > Dear all, > > I think there is a distinction to be made in the question of whether the > language is in fact biased and whether it is perceived as biased. While I > would agree with Pierre that there are arguments to be made that it is not in > fact exclusive language in principle (and valid counterarguments to be sure), > it is in fact taken by many as being biased and exclusive. This in itself > makes it exclusive and this is unnecessary and unwanted. > > Since a label in the ontology is just a label, and our intention with the > label in this case is to give a heuristic to the ontology user in order to > point towards non-naturally generated objects (man made object as we have > said to now), I think that dropping 'man' from 'man made', does not impede > this functionality. > > Removing this part of the label, however, can remove an unintended impression > of gender bias. This seems to be a functional gain that is compatible with > the spirit of CIDOC CRM (view neutral by nature). > > Between 'made' and 'human made', I would lean to the latter. 'Made Object' is > already at the limit of understandability in English (it also has some > unintended connotations of Mafia language). I think maybe 'human made', while > sounding awkward in present day English, may be the direction that everyday > language will go anyhow. 'Humankind' sounds very natural and more inclusive > than 'mankind' certainly. The adjectival form will also follow. > > Another concern is how problematic would the translation be. Checking the > translations I could find, I did not find a major problem, but it is > something to take into consideration. > > A serious technical and cost concern for users of CRM would be that existing > data encoded with the old URIs will now be incompatible with this new label. > That is a significant trade off. > > Finally, there is another class (E24) that includes man made. Added below. > > E22 Ανθρωπογενές Αντικείμενο > E24 Ανθρωπογενές Υλικό Πράγμα > E25 Ανθρωπογενές Μόρφωμα > E71 Ανθρωπογενές Δημιούργημα > > E22-人造物件 (Man-Made Object) > E24-人造实体物 (Physical Man-Made Thing) > E25-人造外貌表征 (Man-Made Feature) > E71-人造物 （Man-Made Thing） > > > E71 Künstliches > E22 Künstlicher Gegenstand > E24 Hergestelltes > E25 Hergestelltes Merkmal > > I, in any case, think it is probably worth making the change -unless the > costs to users in real terms is exorbitant - since the existing label can be > perceived to be biased and this is wholly unintended by the community which > aims to be both neutral and inclusive. > > Best, > > George > > On 2019-04-12 14:23, Dominic Oldman wrote: >> I strongly agree with Florian. >> It is simply right to make these changes. >> D >> ------------------------- >> FROM: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Florian >> Kräutli <[email protected]> >> SENT: 12 April 2019 11:35 >> TO: Pierre Choffé; Athanasios Velios; [email protected] >> SUBJECT: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove >> "Man-" >> Dear Pierre and all, >> I strongly disagree. This is not about the origins of the word but of >> its usage and meaning in present day. The CRM should reflect >> (changing) knowledge contexts and we as a community should react to >> and respect developments in the world, and not decide based on our >> personal opinions about them. >> I think this should be put up as an issue and I would vote in favour >> of either suggestion: dropping ‘man’ or replacing it with >> ‘human’. >> Best, >> Florian >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:13 PM +0200, "Pierre Choffé" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our >>> times and most people (including me) generally avoid getting >>> involved in such discussions - especially on social media where you >>> would immediately get drowned in a flood of insults - and the result >>> is that we have a feeling of consensus on the matter. >>> Now, we as a community might have a different point of view, >>> starting with the knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man" >>> (please consult the wikipedia page [2] for a brief introduction). >>> Can we please avoid this kind of discussions and leave it to Twitter >>> and Facebook ? >>> Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feeling >>> excluded here ?) >>> Have a nice day, >>> Pierre >>> On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 11:2 AM, Athanasios Velios >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> I support the change of the English labels to: >>>> E22 Made Object >>>> E25 Made Feature >>>> E71 Made Thing >>>> And I think this can be proposed as an issue to be voted through >>>> the SIG >>>> list. >>>> All the best, >>>> Thanasis >>>> On 12/04/2019 05:38, Robert Sanderson wrote: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose >>>> that the >>>>> labels for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and E71 >>>> Man-Made >>>>> Thing be changed to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“. >>>> In this day >>>>> and age, I think we should recognize that inclusion and >>>> diversity are >>>>> core features of community acceptance, and that including >>>> gender-biased >>>>> language is alienating. >>>>> Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made >>>> Object, E25 >>>>> changed to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing. >>>>> The “human” nature of the agent that does the making is >>>> explicit in the >>>>> ontology, in that only humans or groups there-of can be Actors >>>> and carry >>>>> out Productions or Creations, so there is no ambiguity about >>>> non-humans >>>>> making these. >>>>> This issue was discussed at length, and has been open in our >>>> profile’s >>>>> tracker for 12 months now. We would greatly prefer that it be >>>> solved by >>>>> changing the labels in the documentation, and thereby in the >>>> RDFS, >>>>> rather than other RDF specific approaches such as minting new >>>> terms and >>>>> using owl:sameAs to assert equality, or rebranding only in the >>>> JSON-LD >>>>> serialization but persisting in other serializations. The change >>>> is >>>>> consistent, reduces the length of the class names, and is an >>>> easy >>>>> substitution. The comprehensibility of the label is still the >>>> same. >>>>> Given the renaming of Collection to Curated Holding, migration >>>> of >>>>> existing data has the same solution - just substitute the >>>> labels. >>>>> As a second choice, if the above is not acceptable, we propose >>>> to >>>>> instead replace “Man-“ with “Human-“ … only two >>>> additional characters, >>>>> but a bit more of a mouthful. >>>>> Many thanks for your engagement with this issue! >>>>> Rob >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Crm-sig mailing list >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>>>> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> [1] >>>> This email and any attachments are intended solely for the >>>> addressee and may contain confidential information. If you are not >>>> the intended recipient of this email and/or its attachments you >>>> must not take any action based upon them and you must not copy or >>>> show them to anyone. Please send the email back to us and >>>> immediately and permanently delete it and its attachments. Where >>>> this email is unrelated to the business of University of the Arts >>>> London or of any of its group companies the opinions expressed in >>>> it are the opinions of the sender and do not necessarily >>>> constitute those of University of the Arts London (or the relevant >>>> group company). Where the sender's signature indicates that the >>>> email is sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses Limited the following >>>> also applies: UAL Short Courses Limited is a company registered in >>>> England and Wales under company number 02361261. Registered >>>> Office: University of the Arts London, 272 High Holborn, London >>>> WC1V 7EY >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Crm-sig mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>>> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> [1] >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> >> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word) >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> > > -- > Dr. George Bruseker > R & D Engineer > > Centre for Cultural Informatics > Institute of Computer Science > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) > Science and Technology Park of Crete > Vassilika Vouton, P.O.Box 1385, GR-711 10 Heraklion, Crete, Greece > > Tel.: +30 2810 391619 Fax: +30 2810 391638 E-mail: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl> > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
