Steve,
something for your breakfast tomorrow morning.
“Knowing” a language is not the same as “using” it. The case started from
documentation stating that somebody knows a language, but not reporting any
use, which is just potential but not necessarily actual. For example, I know
Latin pretty well, but I have very few - if any - opportunities of using it; on
the contrary, I do not know Japanese but sometimes say “sayonara” and “arigato”
appropriately. In these Portuguese archives I would be correctly recorded as
“Latin speaker” but not as “Japanese speaker”.
Your solution instead refers to “using" the language as implied by P16 and
would state exactly the opposite.
I share with you the hate for negative searches, for the reasons you clearly
explain.
Bene valeas placideque quiescas, Stephane (*)
Francus
(*) in order to enable you in using P16 for my knowledge of Latin
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 26 ago 2019, alle ore 23:32, Stephen Stead <ste...@paveprime.org>
> ha scritto:
>
> Just thinking about this after an interesting game of Railroad Revolution.
> It strike me that it might be useful to consider language as a Conceptual
> Object and an Actors use of it would be an instance of E7 Activity P2 has
> type E55 Type {Communication} P16 used specific object E28 Conceptual Object.
> E55 Type {Communication} could be sub-divided into written, spoken, reading
> etc as necessary.
> The other stuff that Rob mentions is rather different and at first glance
> looks a lot like the floruit from FRBR which became F51 Pursuit.
> I am concerned about building optimisations of properties that are intended
> for making searches about negative things like “not known to speak Latin” as
> this is a nasty place to be: absence of Knowledge versus knowledge of
> absence……
>
> Use of a technique is that also the use of an immaterial object?
>
> Anyway off to bed now. Very interesting question
> TTFN
> SdS
>
>
>
>
> Stephen Stead
> Tel +44 20 8668 3075
> Mob +44 7802 755 013
> E-mail ste...@paveprime.com
> LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/
>
> From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: 26 August 2019 18:54
> To: Franco Niccolucci <franco.niccolu...@gmail.com>; George Bruseker
> <george.bruse...@gmail.com>
> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr; "Runa, Lucília" <lucilia.r...@dglab.gov.pt>;
> Barbedo, Francisco <francisco.barb...@dglab.gov.pt>
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I agree with the concerns about modeling the activity of learning a language
> as a substitute for the ability to communicate in a language. On paper I
> have a Ph.D. in French, so surely I’m fluent? Far far from it, as you
> doubtless noted in Paris 😊 I also agree that modeling as a Group is
> problematic for the same reason as modeling gender as a Group – the
> requirement for concerted action. Finally, I agree with Franco’s concern
> about the narrowness of the scope to only Language. We also have information
> about the skills and knowledge of individuals or groups such as Techniques
> employed.
>
> I would not want to model a complete skills management HR system (or video
> game!), but having some pattern for expressing relevant, observed abilities
> would be valuable for searching. Use cases would include:
> · Search for Human Made Objects (HMOs) not classified as Paintings,
> that were produced by an actor that is known for their ability in a painting
> technique. (e.g. drawings by Van Gogh)
> · Search for HMOs that carry a text in a language that is not known
> by the owner of the object (e.g. manuscript in latin owned by someone not
> known to speak latin)
> · Search for possible attributions for a text in a known language,
> filtering for people known to speak that language.
>
> In terms of solutions, we might consider:
> · A super-class for Group (Set?) that allows non-Persons to be
> aggregated, and does not have the intentionality of action requirement.
> o This would enable further modeling patterns, beyond Group and Curated
> Holding.
> · A property similar to George’s suggestion that has E55 Type as its
> range to include Technique or other types.
> o This would enable more specific recording of skills of an Actor without
> implying any particular event
> · A broad usage / known for activity without times more precise than
> the life dates of the actor that encompasses all uses of the language.
> o This would enable adding timespans when known, and perhaps be a pattern
> for other similar information such as when a person is known as an author,
> but is also a painter
>
> We are also modeling our archives at the moment using CRM – it would be very
> interesting to compare the results, as there are several issues that we do
> not have a solution for that we are particularly happy with. The major area
> of concern is the association of properties not at the item level, but at the
> aggregate level meaning that some members of the set have this property. When
> this can be expressed as data rather than just descriptive text, we are
> worried about the false precision. The collections include both digital and
> physical objects, which compounds the issue.
>
> Rob
>
> From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Franco Niccolucci
> <franco.niccolu...@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, August 26, 2019 at 8:26 AM
> To: George Bruseker <george.bruse...@gmail.com>
> Cc: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>, ""Runa, Lucília""
> <lucilia.r...@dglab.gov.pt>, "Barbedo, Francisco"
> <francisco.barb...@dglab.gov.pt>
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
>
> Dear George, all
>
> I think that there are two issues (at least) here.
>
> The first one concerns the identity criteria of this class. This discussion
> started from an issue related to the latter. In this case the grouping of
> English speakers, for example, is identified as “those people whose bio
> states so”. It does not matter if they really speak/spoke English of not,
> this concerns the veridicality of their bio, which is another story.
>
> So the grouping of English speakers is precisely identified. This is not
> always the case.
>
> This issue is a particular case of a more general issue concerning fiat vs
> bona-fide objects, to use the terminology introduced by Smith and Varzi about
> geographical (but not only) objects. As you may remember, fiat ones have
> precise boundaries, bona-fide don’t. For groupings, belongingness has the
> same alternatives, and in most cases what we may call “fiat belongingness” is
> based on a formal definition, like a listing, mathematical criteria, a decree
> and so on. There are thus groupings for which it is easy (feasible?) to
> assess belongingness, others for which it is not, others for which it is
> unclear. The crm-sig mailing list is an example of a fiat group defined by
> listing, as is the group of the citizens of Italy at the time I am writing
> this email, defined by the law and recorded in the civil registry.
> Nationality - mentioned in the E74 scope note - could belong the uncertain
> case: if you consider nationality as the formal status of being citizen of a
> country, it is a fiat criterion. But there may be cases in which the
> nationality may be uncertain. I don’t want to make examples of today as they
> may be politically sensitive, but if you had asked in 1861 to people from
> Venice their nationality they would answer “Italian” although their formal
> nationality was "Austro-Hungarian”. Thanks to the principle of
> self-determination, the number of such cases is much rarer today than it was
> in the 19th century, with a few notable exceptions that we all have in mind.
> However, 99.999% of the cases refer to formal nationality so the above is
> just a pedantic discussion.
>
> Language(s) spoken is much more difficult to assess: what turns the bona-fide
> boundary between speakers and non-speakers into a fiat one in this case? A
> certificate issued by a school? Self-assessment? I think that the case that
> raised this discussion may be easily solved as I mentioned above. But I would
> be cautious to use it in other cases.
>
> For the second issue, modelling this grouping as an E74, I understand
> George’s concern about the use of E74 Group, which is a subclass of E39 Actor
> and thus is required to “[collectively] have the potential to perform
> intentional actions of kinds for which someone may be held responsible”, what
> seems doubtful for speakers of a language. In my opinion this requirement for
> intentional actions could be considered in a very broad sense; for language,
> avoiding sexist terminology in English could be an example - stretching it a
> bit, I admit. But otherwise, how can we model collectivities like this one
> and others such as “archaeologists”, “Buddhists” “Real Madrid fans” etc ?
>
> Finally, George’s proposal is nice but addresses only the language issue and
> not other groupings/features of the same type, i.e. collectivities based on
> some common characteristic, but not required to be able to collectively
> perform intentional actions, for example illiterate people.
>
> Best
>
> Franco
>
> 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 26 ago 2019, alle ore 08:29, George Bruseker
>> <george.bruse...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> In the context of multiple modelling projects, I have run into the need to
>> model the fact that an individual is known to have spoken/used a language.
>> It is a common attribute recorded of an individual in an information system.
>> Often, the only information we have / is known, is that someone 'had
>> language' x or y. The fact that someone is a user / speaker of a language is
>> a potentially directly observable phenomenon. I would thus argue that it can
>> be considered a direct property of an instance of E21 Person. To model
>> competency (native, very good etc.) and/or aspect (written/oral/reading), it
>> might also be necessary to add a .1 property or two.
>>
>> Modelling how a person acquired a language, when they lost it etc. would
>> require looking at temporal classes, but in the information systems I have
>> seen this is usually not recorded so is not be an immediate modelling need.
>> While I see the logic behind the group modelling pattern, it would seem to
>> go against the idea that a group self-identifies and can in principle act as
>> one. While I think one can make the case for a nation to potentially act as
>> one unit (via their institutions), I don't think that you will get all
>> English, Italian, or French speakers (separately) to create a joint
>> programme of action. The E7 solution is problematic because we don't know
>> any particular event of the using/speaking of language, or rather we are not
>> primarily interested in it. If we wanted to use an event like that, it would
>> have to be something like, language speaking phase/event (where we meant the
>> long term activity of continuously using the language), which is probably
>> hard to know in most cases anyhow.
>>
>> I would thus like to propose to make an issue to discuss the addition of a
>> new binary property, something like: E21 Person 'was user of' E57 Language.
>> The justification is that it is an empirically verifiable property that
>> adheres to a human actor and is regularly recorded in documentation schema
>> for person data. It seems like it might be good to model this in CRMSoc. I
>> would agree that eventually one might want to model the acquisition of the
>> language or the temporal extent of when one was a user of a language. This
>> could built off of the simple property.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:12 AM Christian-Emil Smith Ore
>> <c.e.s....@iln.uio.no> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> It is correct as Franco writes, that a group can be used to model the
>> speakers of a language.
>>
>> The class E74 Group is a very strong mechanism and can be used to model
>> almost any relationship between actors, that is, the members of the group
>> has the relationship indicated by the type of the group. The classes
>> E85 Joining and E86 Leaving and the properties
>>
>> P143 joined (was joined by): E39 Actor
>> P144 joined with (gained member by) E74 Group
>>
>> P145 separated (left by) E39 Actor
>> P146 separated from (lost member by) E74 Group
>>
>> enable us to model the time aspect.
>>
>> At least in my opinion, the class E55 Tyoes and P2 has type can be used to
>> model persons abilities like speaking a language in the cases where time is
>> not a concern. On the other hand this timelessness give an impression that
>> a type indicate a trait or some immanent characteristics of a person. It is
>> a philosophical question whether language skills characterize a person in
>> such a way.
>>
>> There is an ongoing issue 329 in CRM about states. In connection with this
>> issue there is a table with an overview: “CRM Properties that may have
>> shorter temporal validity than their domain and range”
>> http://cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/table%20of%20issue%20329.docx
>> Among these P2 has type is listed. It is still not decided how this time
>> specific validity should be modelled in CRM.
>>
>> Best,
>> Christian-Emil
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Franco Niccolucci
>> <franco.niccolu...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: 24 August 2019 19:45
>> To: Maria Jose de Almeida
>> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr; "Runa, Lucília"; Barbedo, Francisco
>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] EMAIL SUSPEITO: P72 has Language
>>
>> Dear Maria, all
>>
>> the problem comes from the fact that the CRM usually models what humans DO,
>> not what they ARE. To model the latter, it is therefore necessary to
>> introduce an event in which the person participates, as Thanasis suggested.
>> What he proposes is correct, but considering a language instrumental to the
>> activity of learning it sounds a bit awkward to my ear: common sense would
>> consider so a handbook, an app, a teacher etc.
>> Also, such activity may be problematic with native languages where an
>> intentional action (= activity) is difficult to attribute to a few months
>> old baby.
>>
>> From your description I believe that you are interested in documenting the
>> factual knowledge of a language, not that/how it was learnt, so I suggest
>> the following approach.
>>
>> In this specific case you might use membership in an E74 Group, similar to
>> what is suggested in the scope note of E74 for ‘nationality'. Thus you would
>> have very large groupings of speakers of different languages, and speaking
>> one of them would correspond to being member of that specific group, e.g.
>> Maria P107 is member of E74 Group 'Portuguese speakers’.
>> Incidentally, this option would also enable you (if you wish) to distinguish
>> among the levels of knowledge of that language via P107.1 kind of member E55
>> Type ’native speaker’. Thus, also the following would hold for you: Maria
>> P107 is member of E74 Group ‘English speakers’, but with P107.1 kind of
>> member E55 Type ’second language speaker’. Further flexibility can be
>> introduced with this P107.1 if required, like “writer”, “translator”, etc.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Franco
>>
>>
>> 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 23 ago 2019, alle ore 16:17, Maria Jose de Almeida
>> > <m-jose.alme...@dglab.gov.pt> ha scritto:
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > As some of you may know, I’m working in the Portuguese National Archives
>> > an we are building a new data infrastructure using CIDOC-CRM for archival
>> > description.
>> > When describing biographical information it’s common to state that some
>> > person was fluent in some language, or languages, apart from his/her
>> > native one. Using current archival descriptions standards [ISAD(G) 3.2.2;
>> > EAD <bioghist>] this is represented within a text, usually a very long
>> > text string with information of distinct natures. So far we have been able
>> > to decompose the different elements and represent them adequately as
>> > instances of CIDOC-CRM classes and link them trough the suitable
>> > properties. But we are struggling with this one...
>> > We cannot link a Person (E21) to a language (E56) and neither use multiple
>> > instantiation, as it has been suggested in other cases
>> > (http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-258-p72-quantification), because Person
>> > (E21) and Linguistic Object (E33) are disjoint.
>> > The only way around I can think of is to consider someone’s speech as a
>> > linguistic object and state that that person participated in the creation
>> > of that linguistic object.
>> > But it seams a rather odd solution as we would have to crate individuals
>> > for someone’s speech in Portuguese, in French, in Russian, etc. and
>> > describe them in a very broader manner. Because when it is stated that a
>> > person is fluent in any of those languages, typically what is meant is
>> > that that person could interact with other speakers of the same language,
>> > mainly trough an oral discourse, or read written documents. Not exactly
>> > the same as creating documents in a foreign language, situation which is
>> > much more straightforward to represent.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts that may help us?
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > --
>> > Maria José de Almeida
>> > Técnica Superior
>> >
>> > Direção de Serviços de Inovação e Administração Eletrónica
>> > Telefone (direto): 210 037 343
>> > Telefone (geral): 210 037 100
>> > m-jose.alme...@dglab.gov.pt
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
