Besides the fact that language is a very central "skill" of humans
which making vases definitely isn't (there is a book called the
articulated mamal about psycolingustics, I have never accountered a
book called the vasemaking mamal), skill in given languages seems to
be documented in many documetnation systems. According to the
priciples of CRM development we should always base our model on real
examples from museum documentation.
C-E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* George Bruseker <[email protected]>
*Sent:* 28 August 2019 20:49
*To:* Franco Niccolucci
*Cc:* Christian-Emil Smith Ore; crm-sig; [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
Dear Franco et Al.,
Actually I have no argument against skill, it would be a similar
pattern. My worry would be about making either a language or a skill a
conceptual object. I see the reason behind the proposal but I'm not
sure especially about language being conceived of as a human made
object in the crm sense. There I think we more refer to an
intentionally created intellectual object with discrete boundaries. I
am not convinced this is an appropriate apprehension of language. We
come to be in language and reproduce it. A great genius may change it.
Mostly it just happens to us and we do not employ it as an object nor
are we intentionally aware of it. No one made it. It forms a sort of
horizon for communicative axtion. By using type we avoid the
controversy. Skill I would associate with texne in the sense of craft.
Craft could be conceived as closer to something like a crm conceptual
object but again a craft seems to go beyond any one person or group
qua invention so i would find it more comfortable to think of as a type.
So if skill were also to be modelled maybe another binary property
E21person had skill exx skill
Exx skill isa e55
And then perhaps some super property of both
E21 had knowledge of e55
I would find the ability to express both of these in crm an extremely
useful addition instead of creating ad hoc solutions per project.
As to the base issue, I don't mean anything fancy, just whatever is in
the basic standard and not a family model.
Will check out the demonstration vid when back to WiFi!
Best
George
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 9:29 PM Franco Niccolucci
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
George,
OK with me, but you should explain why knowing a language has a
superior status compared to other abilities like
- making vases
- driving vehicles
- painting
- computation (I am particularly passionate about this one)
- properly defining new classes/properties in the CRM
etc.
It seems to me that (speaking/knowing/using) a language is just
one (very important) human skill among many, so I would rather
consider a broader class, say Exx Skill, one of which skill types
is "knowing a language", and then use something like
E21 person Pxx has skill Exx Skill P2 has type E55 “speaking
language” P2 has type E56 “EN”;
as well as:
E21 person Pxx has skill Exx Skill P2 has type E55 “computation”
P2 has type E55 “four basic operations”.
I leave to you to correctly place Exx Skill in the CRM hierarchy,
maybe a subclass of E28 Conceptual Object.
I would also be grateful if you are able to point me to a clean
and comprehensive description of CRMBase which you refer to in
your last sentence.
Due to my ignorance, it looks to me like the Phoenix that, in the
words of Don Alfonso in Mozart’s 'Così fan tutte’, “everybody says
it exists, but nobody knows where it is” (a nice performance here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73rY81pT5Wk
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73rY81pT5Wk>).
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 28 ago 2019, alle ore 17:48, George Bruseker
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> ha
scritto:
>
> Hi Christian-Emil et al.,
>
> Regarding language in particular, my argument would be to make a
new direct binary relation something like E21 Person pxx 'knew
language’ E56 Language.
>
> This relation, to my mind, would be parallel to E18 p45 consists
of E57 Material
>
> There is indeed an event which we normally don’t know anything
about (nor have a research interest in) of learning a language,
which leads to the instance of E21 Person having a constitutional
change in knowledge (Aristotle called it Hexis) whereby they then
know a language. I believe this change in knowledge state is not
something that changes the being of the individual as such
(primary quality) which is what p2 has type would indicate but
only creates a modification in the secondary qualities of the person.
>
> To loosely parallel existing CIDOC CRM modelling, a production
event creates an object. In creating it, materials are used and it
creates a new instance of Human Made Object. This instance of
Human Made Object now consists of an E57 Material like ceramic. So
qua what it is made of we say p45 consists of, qua what it
functionally is, we say that it p2 has type ‘jug’ for example. p45
is not a sub property of has type because the relation is not one
of “being" the material but rather having the substance of material x.
>
> Regarding time problems, the instance of E21 Person did not
always know the language. That being said when we declare a
relation like ‘knew language’ we state that it was the case that
there was a moment of the existence of this E21 Person where the
person had the knowledge (had the hexis) of knowing x. It is
actually true for the whole lifetime of the entity that at
sometime it knew language x just in case in real life at sometime
in its life it knew language x.
>
> I think that in the interest of not endlessly filling up
CRMBase, it might be better to put such an addition into CRMSoc.
The above suggestion does not mean to argue that we couldn’t or
shouldn’t also model learning events or use events with regards to
language but rather that there is a basic function that is
ontologically correct to assert that a Person knows a language
which fits a real world use case.
>
> Best,
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Aug 28, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear George & all,
>> Your text and sketch of a solution is indeed interesting. I
agree that (natural, human) languages is a special case. Animals
are currently not in the scope of CRM. I also agree that there is
(currently) no links between an instance 'English (language)' of
E55 Type and an instance 'speaker/writer ofEnglish (language)' of
E55 Type. Should such a connection be in the type system (in the
fringes or outside CRM)? If we introduce a new property from E21
Person what is the range, E55 Type?
>>
>> Best,
>> Christian-Emil
>> From: Crm-sig <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of George
Bruseker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Sent: 27 August 2019 10:53
>> To: Franco Niccolucci
>> Cc: crm-sig; Runa, Lucília; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; Barbedo, Francisco
>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Sticking to the question of documenting when we have
information that someone knew a language or had a skill in a
technique, I reiterate that I believe really need a new property
and not to use p2 has type.
>>
>> p2 has type is a good solution for classifying a kind of
phenomena or for specializing a class when it does not require a
new relation in the ontology. It's a very useful tool but it does
not work for what we need to document here.
>>
>> The semantics of saying that someone had knowledge in a
language can indeed be interpreted as E21 Person p2 has type E55
"English Speaker". It could not, however, be typed E21 person p2
has type E57 Language "English". Why? Because the E57 Type
classifies the phenomenon of language not of people. The E55 is
relative to the phenomenon it classifies/specializes. People are
not language nor vice versa. One of the things we would want to
make possible in linking an E21 person to an E57 Language is to
create consistent and potentially serendipitous relations between
an instance of person and an instance of language. (As one of
Rob's examples: the work used E57 English and the person who
encountered it E5 was a knower of E57 English, ergo, they could
but did not necessarily read it!) This would not be facilitated by
saying E21 Person p2 has type E55 "English Speaker" because there
are no given semantic connections between the instance "English
Speaker" which classified a person as a kind and the instance E57
Language "English" which classifies linguistic phenomena.
>>
>> The semantic intent, I would argue, in the schemas that
document fields like language and technique is often not to say
that this person is of type "English Speaker" or even of type
"Painter" but that they have/had knowledge of English (linguistic
phenomenon) or Painting (technical phenomenon). Because someone
knows or uses a technique does make them someone who would
generally be classified (with regards to official documentation)
as being an exemplar of that language/technique. So as Rob is not
necessarily a 'French Speaker" though he knows French, George is
not necessarily a Painter, though he may have a knowledge of
painting notable enough to document. (It is counterfactual, I
don't even have this knowledge but for lack of a better example)
>>
>> Human beings are an objective phenomenon that can be witnessed
and have certain behaviours and potentials which other phenomena
do not, one of which includes the ability to know. We should be
able to document this objective phenomenon because it falls within
scope. The kind of knowledge in question is not an act of knowing
(temporal) but the result of having learned and now acquired a new
understanding which allows the human being to act in the world in
a new skillful way in certain situations. This knowledge remains,
more or less present, in the knower without any particular
activation once they have acquired it (forgetting and rustiness
not withstanding). It is simply one of their properties.
>>
>> It's all a long winded way of saying that we need a relation
between E21 Person (at least) to indicate that they have a
knowledge. There should be a binary property for this (which could
then be extended) which allows one to make the simple statement, A
knows B. This would not be a sub property of P2 has type, but a
new property. I'm not sure if it would have an existing
superproperty. My original suggestion would be to stick to
language and then go for a super class, although the question of
technique also arises.
>>
>> The other issues Rob and Franco raise about documenting fiat
groups/sets are very important but perhaps we could make them
another discussion and issue (when it comes time to formulating
something particular for voting on at SIG).
>>
>> About the idea of making language a conceptual object, I think
we would have to have a lot of discussion and reflection on that,
because it seems like a large metaphysical issue. Language is
obviously very particular to human being, Aristotle called us the
rational (logos) animal. But it is not clear that logos is the
invention of human being or that it can be said to be something
that we can use in a utilitarian way like a pot or a mould. It
seems more like a medium through which certain types of
communicative act can/do occur. Anyhow, also a fun discussion but
I think having a E21 person "has knowledge or / was use of
language" X property could be a modest first step that is
semantically robust to a real use case and can be extended by
further modelling without likely breaks to monotonic development.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:19 AM Franco Niccolucci
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
>> 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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> > LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/>
>> >
>> > From: Crm-sig <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
>> > Sent: 26 August 2019 18:54
>> > To: Franco Niccolucci <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; George Bruseker
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>;
"Runa, Lucília" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; Barbedo, Francisco
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> > 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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Franco
Niccolucci <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> > Date: Monday, August 26, 2019 at 8:26 AM
>> > To: George Bruseker <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> > Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, ""Runa,
Lucília"" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Barbedo, Francisco"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> > 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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Franco
Niccolucci <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> >> Sent: 24 August 2019 19:45
>> >> To: Maria Jose de Almeida
>> >> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > 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>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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>
>> > 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 <http://www.avast.com>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
