Dear all, To be my own devils advocate: There is another interpretation of P2 has type as "has former or current type” analogously to the properties P49 has former or current keeper, P51 has former or current owner, P55 has former or current location. In this way P2 has type does not necessarily describe a trait, but a temporal property (in this case) of a person. We simply don’t know (or care to know) at what time the person had this property. I assume this was the original intention of the class. From this interpretation it should be ok to use the property P2 has type to model passive (understand) and active (speak/write) knowledge of a language. It is more tricky to model the time a person got a property. Attribute assignment can be used but will model when somebody assign the property to the person and not when the person got the property. The information in an archive, e.g. “x” is fluent in Latin can be modelled by E13 Attribute assignment giving information as an observation. Examination with grade is also an E13 Attribute assignment. As mentioned in this discussion the FRBRoo class F51 Pursuit (subclass of E7 Activity) is a possible candidate for describing skills although this class require that the person actively uses the skill?
Group again: I have reread the issues involving the scope note of E73 Group. In 2003 the first sentence of the scope note was “A group is any gathering of people that acts collectively or in a similar way due to any kind of social bounds or contact” And the current is “This class comprises any gatherings or organizations of E39 Actors that act collectively or in a similar way due to any form of unifying relationship” The formulation “act collectively or in a similar way” is (intensionally?) vague. Is it possible to say that a persons with skills in the same language “act collectively or in a similar way” an can “gathering” be used about persons spread out on different places on the globe? I cannot find such an extended meaning in OED. Maybe we should NOT use E72 Group as a general relationship model? Best Christian-Emil *********** E72 Group The earliest version I found was from 3.3.2: “A group is any gathering of people that acts collectively or in a similar way due to any kind of social bounds or contact. Nationality can be handled as membership in a group of appropriate type. Note the distinction between citizenship and ethnic group and other subtleties not easily expressible by nationality adjectives.” 4.0 This class comprises any gatherings or organizations of two or more people that act collectively or in a similar way due to any form of unifying relationship. A gathering of people becomes an E74 Group when it exhibits organizational characteristics usually typified by a set of ideas or beliefs held in common, or actions performed together. These might be communication, creating some common artifact, a common purpose such as study, worship, business, sports, etc. Nationality can be modeled as membership in an E74 Group (cf. HumanML markup). In the harmonization work with LRM the following was suggested in 2018 “This class comprises any named gatherings or organizations of two or more people that have acted or have the potential to act collectively to produce some intentional result for which they can be collectively considered responsible.” … The outcome of the discussion is the current scope note (6.2.6) “This class comprises any gatherings or organizations of E39 Actors that act collectively or in a similar way due to any form of unifying relationship. In the wider sense this class also comprises official positions 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 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 organizational characteristics usually typified by a set of ideas or beliefs held in common, or actions performed together. These might be communication, creating some common artifact, a common purpose such as study, worship, business, sports, etc. Nationality can be modelled as membership in an E74 Group (cf. HumanML markup). Married couples and other concepts of family are regarded as particular examples of E74 Group.” ************ ________________________________________ From: athinak <[email protected]> Sent: 27 August 2019 09:40 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Cc: [email protected]; Runa, Lucília; Barbedo, Francisco Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] EMAIL SUSPEITO: P72 has Language Dear all, I agree with Christian-Emil, especially for the P2 has type property, as a simple solution for the cases that we don't have enough information to infer this capability or cases lacking temporal information - it reminds me of the issue 277 and the example of the artist Best, Athina Kritsotaki Στις 2019-08-25 10:05, Christian-Emil Smith Ore έγραψε: > 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 Actol > 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 <[email protected]> on behalf of Franco > Niccolucci <[email protected]> > Sent: 24 August 2019 19:45 > To: Maria Jose de Almeida > Cc: [email protected]; "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 >> <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
