Dear all, I fully agree with Franco.
Just a quick remark from the Linguistic world: in order not to run into incorrect analysis of linguistic facts it is always good to keep in mind that the grammatical coding of a language does not reflect the cognitive perception or the cultural and moral judgment of the society/ies that speak(s) this language. The Germans do not believe that women are things just because “Weib" is a neutral noun rather than a feminine one. It would therefore be appropriate to keep the linguistic facts (as well as the CIDOC CRM label) sheltered from the cultural facts of our world. But, if the issue is to avoid the opinions of speakers on their own language, why do we not replace English with Latin? This would definitely solve the problem :-) Best regards, Achille (& Francesca) > Il giorno 12 apr 2019, alle ore 17:05, Franco Niccolucci > <franco.niccolu...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > I (almost) fully agree with Christian-Emil. > > But just “Made” could be a misleading label as per se it would include also > the result of a deliberate action by my cat: Made Feature = “scratch made on > this precious painting by Agatha (the cat) while sharpening her nails”. > Instead the scope note indicates it must be the result of human action. > > As regards the sexist use of “man": > > In Latin “homo” designates any human, the male homo being “vir” versus > “mulier”, the female homo: see e.g. “homo sapiens Linn.” and the like. > This use has remained in Latin languages, even if the word “vir” as > substantive was sometimes lost: the word derived from homo in modern > languages may indicate a human being, regardless of gender, as well as a male > of this species: the generic use is a remnant of Latin, not a sexist > attribution. > This is the current use in Italian. > I am not sure about Romanian; for French, there is the famous Musée de > l’Homme in Paris, which I suspect hosts artefacts concerning both genders. A > possible prevalence of Male-Made ones, for the well-known historic reasons, > is not why it is called it the “Man Museum". > The Royal Spanish Academy defines “hombre” as "Ser animado racional, varón o > mujer” i.e. “Living rational entity, man (varón) or woman (mujer)”. This > language kept the Latin distinction even if in the Tex-Mex language “hombre” > is usually referred to males only. Interesting to notice that varón does not > derive from vir and was originally a derogatory term, this time attributed to > males. > > In conclusion, this is a matter concerning some Anglo-Saxon allergy caused by > the semantic poverty of the language. I would let them go their way and > choose whatever they like best, man or human; in the meantime, continue > translating it with the gender-neutral term we use in our richer languages. > > A label is just a label, so check the implementation cost of the change > beforehand: standards are international, not English, so if a bias is > perceived by English speakers it is their problem, not mine. Thus out of > courtesy I may try to avoid any inconvenience, but I would object paying for > the necessary adjustments. On this regard, look at this: > https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-04-08. > > Franco > > PS I did not know the American English use of “Made man” as a Mafia member; > here we use the term “initiate” for a person inducted into the Mafia. > > > Prof. Franco Niccolucci > Director, VAST-LAB > PIN - U. of Florence > Scientific Coordinator > ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS > > Editor-in-Chief > ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) > > Piazza Ciardi 25 > 59100 Prato, Italy > > >> Il giorno 12 apr 2019, alle ore 15:14, Christian-Emil Smith Ore >> <c.e.s....@iln.uio.no> ha scritto: >> >> Aas Øyvind points out, the debate is the result of a deficite of The >> English language. In Swedish for example, the word for 'human' has femine >> gender. >> >> I have no problem with man-made -> made as long as 'made' is not too wide >> and include object not made by humans. I checked OED adn it seems ok. But, >> please check this with somebody with somebody with the right Englsih >> language expertice. It is not allways so that the natives know their >> language in this respect. >> >> Best, >> Christian-Emil >> >> OED >> >> made, adj. >> View as: Outline |Full entryKeywords: On |OffQuotations: Show all |Hide all >> Pronunciation: Brit. /meɪd/, U.S. /meɪd/ >> Forms: see make v.1 >> Frequency (in current use): >> Origin: Formed within English, by conversion. Etymons: English made , make >> v.1 >> Etymology: < made, past participle of make v.1 >> I. Produced or obtained by making as distinguished in some way from other >> modes of origin or acquisition. >> Thesaurus » >> Categories » >> >> †1. Of a story: invented, fictitious. Of a word: invented, coined. Of an >> errand: invented for a pretext; made-up. Obsolete. >> a1387—1843(Show quotations) >> >> >> 2. >> Thesaurus » >> Categories » >> >> a. Chiefly Scottish in early use. That has undergone a process of >> manufacture. Formerly also (occasionally): †prepared for use (cf. senses of >> make v.1) (obsolete). >> 1428—1966(Show quotations) >> >> >> >> b. spec. Of land, earth, etc.: resulting from human activity; constructed; >> reclaimed. Later also applied to roads, watercourses, etc. Occasionally >> also, of ground: composed (in part) of recently accumulated material (see >> quot. 1871). >> 1597—1981(Show quotations) >> >> >> 3. >> Thesaurus » >> Categories » >> >> a. Chiefly Cookery. Concocted from ingredients or constituents; esp. in >> made dish n. a dish composed of several ingredients. >> made gravy n. a gravy artificially compounded, as opposed to one consisting >> only of the juices obtained during cooking. >> 1559—1995(Show quotations) >> >> >> Thesaurus » >> Categories » >> >> b. Of an alcoholic beverage, usually wine: home-made or locally made, in >> contradistinction to those obtained from a distance. Chiefly in made wine. >> In the United Kingdom sometimes spec. (see quot. 1889). >> 1747—1980(Show quotations) >> >> >> Categories » >> >> †c. Banking. Of a bill: drawn in one country and payable or negotiated in >> another (see quots.). Obsolete. >> 1868—1868(Show quotations) >> >> >> Thesaurus » >> >> 4. gen. Artificial; brought about by contrivance, arranged; that has not >> come about or developed naturally. >> 1580—1987(Show quotations) >> >> >> II. Of which the making has taken place. >> 5. Of a hawk, horse, hound, etc.: fully trained. >> 1474—1987(Show quotations) >> >> 6. >> >> a. Of a person: having his or her success in life (happiness, etc.) assured. >> Chiefly in a made man. >> a1516—1992(Show quotations) >> >> >> b. slang (orig. U.S.). Esp. in made man: designating a person who has been >> formally inducted as a full member of the Mafia. >> 1973—1992(Show quotations) >> ************************************** >> man-made, adj. and n. >> View as: Outline |Full entryKeywords: On |OffQuotations: Show all |Hide all >> Pronunciation: Brit. /ˌmanˈmeɪd/, U.S. /ˈˌmænˈˌmeɪd/ >> Forms: 16– man-made, 19– man made, 19– manmade. >> Frequency (in current use): >> Origin: Formed within English, by compounding. Etymons: man n.1, made adj. >> Etymology: < man n.1 + made adj.... (Show More) >> A. adj. >> 1. >> Categories » >> >> a. Made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made >> naturally); arising from human activity; artificial. Also figurative. rare >> before 19th cent. >> 1615—1994(Show quotations) >> >> >> Thesaurus » >> Categories » >> >> b. spec. Of a fibre: manufactured from regenerated or synthetic polymer. Of >> a fabric: made or consisting of such fibre. >> 1950—1990(Show quotations) >> >> >> Thesaurus » >> >> †2. Of a church minister: appointed by humans as opposed to God. Obsolete. >> In quot. a1742 as men-made. >> a1718—a1742(Show quotations) >> >> >> B. n. >> Thesaurus » >> Categories » >> >> A man-made fibre or fabric. >> 1968—1985(Show quotations) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Øyvind Eide >> <lis...@oeide.no> >> Sent: 12 April 2019 14:30 >> To: George Bruseker >> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-" >> >> 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 <bruse...@ics.forth.gr>: >>> >>> 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 <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Florian >>>> Kräutli <fkraeu...@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de> >>>> SENT: 12 April 2019 11:35 >>>> TO: Pierre Choffé; Athanasios Velios; crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>>> 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" >>>> <choffepie...@gmail.com> 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 >>>>> <a.vel...@arts.ac.uk> 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 >>>>>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig [1] >>>> Links: >>>> ------ >>>> [1] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word) >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Crm-sig mailing list >>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>>> 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: bruse...@ics.forth.gr >>> URL: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Crm-sig mailing list >>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
