Dear Martin, Which is CEO’s proposition that you support? It gets lost in the string. Do you mean that a) a person speaking a language means being part of a group, or b) using the p2 on E21 and then make types for ’Speakers of...'
I am (still and very much ) a supporter of a new property ‘knows language'. I do not think that the group solution works because of the identify criteria of groups. I also don’t think the event solution is necessary (another suggestion that has floated in this conversation). It is often the case that for person we do not know events of their acquisition or use of language or a skill but we do have proposition that they had that language or skill! I also don’ t support the ‘English Speakers’ type solution since it provides a different URI than the URI for ‘English’ and forces more, obscure, modelling. Another CIDOC CRM principle is model at the level of knowledge that is typically present in information systems. Again, I think the present case (people know languages) is identical to the case of E22 consists of E57 Material This is a typical piece of knowledge held about an object. It would be obtuse to insist that one should create an event node to indicate the manner of this material becoming the constituting material of the object when we don’t know this fact. This is why CRM represents such binary relations, because they are real, they are a level of knowledge and they are observable. If someone has entered into an information system George: English, Pot Making, it is unlikely that what they want to reconstruct are instances of me using English or performing Pot making. Rather they are interested that there is an individual which has a particular formation which means that he knows language x, knows skill x. This information is probably used in an actual integration to connect an instance of E21 via an instance of E57 Language to for example E33 that use the same E57. It would seem we need some sort of hierarchy in the principles which can also be conflicting. > > My approach is not documenting skills. My approach is documenting facts, > rather than potentials. I take notice and may document that you spoke Latin, > as I have done last time at school. I have a document stating my grade in > Latin at high school. My grade at high school confirms a set of years of > continued successful lessons, not that I could understand much Latin now;-). > Speaking a language can be documented as an extended (observed) activity, as > in FRBRoo. It may be, but is it typically? I have never seen an information system, especially in museum context that would. > For instance, someone writing books in particular language. This falls under > any kind of extended activity not further specified, such as an artist using > a technique for some time, and avoids transforming actual activities into > potentials. > > We can document someone's documented opinion about a potential of a person, > as an information object. That would make this information mostly unusable however. If our goal is to functionally use the observation person x speaks language y, then it needs to be semantically represented and not made a string. > > In the "Principles for Modelling Ontologies" we refer: > "7.2 Avoid concepts depending on a personal/ spectator perspective" > > This could be elaborated more. In the CRM, we do not model concepts "because > people use them", but because they can be used to integrated information > related to them with URIs. Therefore, your arguments and what I wanted to > say is, "skill" is a bad concept for integration. What should be instantiated > are the observable activities, which may or may not indicate skills. I don’t see that this principle applies. It is not a personal perspective that someone speaks a language, anymore than it is a personal perspective that an object is constituted of a material. This fact can be documented and observed. Someone else can come and do the same. Don’t believe Franco can speak Latin? Watch him and see if he can. When someone writes in an information system, they probably typically mean, some evidence leads me to assert Person y knows language y. They do not mean to say at some point in the past he learned it, or at some point he performed it. In the case of documenting that someone knows a language this can be used practically to integrate using URIs just in case we use the same URI for English that we use to describe a document and that we use to describe the knowledge of the individual E21 knows language E57 Language URI:AA E33 has language E57 Language URI:AA answers the query, who in this graph knew the language this document was written in. Functionally, the issue for me is, is there a good reason against adding a binary property off of person which can indicate their knowledge ability and connect to a well known URI for a language. Best, George > > > The CRM does not make any statement that forbids describing concepts not in > the CRM. > > I kindly invite you to improve our principles document respectively > > You write: > "So they are Actors even before doing anything or being in the position to do > so, i.e. before any fact that can support assessing their capacity: just > because the can “potentially" do it. Like myself with speaking Latin. Are > they Actors since they are humans? Not really, because there is people “unfit > to plead”, i.e. legally not responsible of their actions because of some > mental infirmity. Nevertheless I would call them still Actors as they can do > actions - without being responsible for what they do." > > Of course. > > This discourse applies to all concepts in the CRM. In dozens of tutorial we > have stated, that all real-life concepts have fuzzy boundaries, and that > scope notes to do not constitute sufficient logical conditions, but are > sufficient to make users understand what we want to talk about. The argument > you give is irrelevant, if the errors it may produce do not affect the recall > of integrating relevant facts with the CRM. The CRM is not made to produce > reliable AI results. Reality is not isomorphic to any logical model. "Unfit > to plead" does not change the fact that the kind of action is one a normal > human can be made responsible for. How many "unfit to plead" appear in our > cultural historical discourse, and would invalidate any of the properties we > use? We indeed need to estimate if exceptions prevent us from finding > relevant connections with CRM-based integration. For reasons of recall, we > allow all concepts to include a few individuals unfit for the required > properties. > > You can continue if a chair with a broken leg is still a chair etc. If have > not seen any concept free of fuzzy boundaries. > > In the CRM, we do not define concepts as being the domain of a property, > because then the primitive is the property. > > I kindly invite you to improve our principles document respectively > > to avoid such criticism at each concept, but much more to teach these > principles effectively, or to provide better scope notes if there are > any.:-):-) > > See also > "5.4 Model domains and range or properties consistent with your level of > knowledge of the domain of discourse" > > All the best, > > Martin > > On 9/23/2019 6:42 PM, Franco Niccolucci wrote: >> Dear Martin >> >> The discussion started from “speaking languages” confronted with “language” >> as defined in the CRM. >> >> An example concerned speaking dead languages, like Latin. I can speak Latin, >> but never do it and probably will never do it in the future: although I >> could, if I so wished. People in the Vatican City do speak Latin every day, >> as it is the quasi-official language there (complicated story, see wikipedia >> for details). One of my colleagues had her first conversation in Latin at >> the age of 25, with her current husband, as it was the only foreign language >> both knew. So sometimes people capable of speaking a language never do it, >> or do it after many years they learnt it, or do it every day. >> According to your approach, you would qualify the priest in Vatican as >> “Latin speaker”; my colleague also as “Latin speaker” but only since the age >> of 25, when she magically acquired this qualification uttering some sounds >> in the language of the Romans; and myself “not Latin speaker”. >> >> About assessment: how do we assess the potential of an Actor: "This class >> comprises people, either individually or in groups, who have the >> **potential** to perform intentional actions of kinds for which someone may >> be held responsible.” >> So they are Actors even before doing anything or being in the position to do >> so, i.e. before any fact that can support assessing their capacity: just >> because the can “potentially" do it. Like myself with speaking Latin. >> Are they Actors since they are humans? Not really, because there is people >> “unfit to plead”, i.e. legally not responsible of their actions because of >> some mental infirmity. Nevertheless I would call them still Actors as they >> can do actions - without being responsible for what they do. >> >> In the particular case that raised the issue, the language knowledge >> (skill?) of people was reported in archive documents, which to me seems >> enough to assess these people's capacity. The same documents probably did >> not state if the people had ever spoken the language they reportedly knew. >> So an assessment is possible even it is not factual. >> >> Last, but not least: is there any difference between (being able of) >> “speaking” and “reading/writing”? I believe “speaking” is just shorthand for >> any of these... but what name would you give to the capacity of speaking or >> writing or reading or any combination of these XXXX - I can’t call them >> skills :) >> >> Best >> >> Franco >> >> PS I attach a short statement voiced in Latin hoping to upgrade from >> “non-Latin speaker” to “Latin speaker”, as of today. >> >> >> 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 set 2019, alle ore 16:04, Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> >>> <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> ha scritto: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I support Christian-Emils proposal. May I remind you, that the CRM has >>> become very stable by a careful bottom-up process. Introducing >>> super-concepts in a rash to cover the whole world is desastrous. If any, we >>> model first language skills from documentation, and then add other skills >>> one by one. Please also compare to the FRBRoo model about extended >>> activities. We describe a potter by doing pottery, not by having the >>> potential. The skill is a potential. CRM is evidence oriented. People >>> speaking a language do it. How do we assess the Skill?? Aren't the events >>> enough? (Exams, professions, use...) >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> martin >>> >>> On 8/29/2019 3:28 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: >>>> 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 <george.bruse...@gmail.com> >>>> <mailto:george.bruse...@gmail.com> >>>> Sent: 28 August 2019 20:49 >>>> To: Franco Niccolucci >>>> Cc: Christian-Emil Smith Ore; crm-sig; ste...@paveprime.org >>>> <mailto:ste...@paveprime.org> >>>> 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 >>>> <franco.niccolu...@gmail.com> <mailto:franco.niccolu...@gmail.com> 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 >>>>> <george.bruse...@gmail.com> <mailto:george.bruse...@gmail.com> 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 >>>>>> <c.e.s....@iln.uio.no> <mailto:c.e.s....@iln.uio.no> 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 <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> >>>>>> <mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of George Bruseker >>>>>> <george.bruse...@gmail.com> <mailto:george.bruse...@gmail.com> >>>>>> Sent: 27 August 2019 10:53 >>>>>> To: Franco Niccolucci >>>>>> Cc: crm-sig; Runa, Lucília; ste...@paveprime.org >>>>>> <mailto:ste...@paveprime.org>; 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 >>>>>> <franco.niccolu...@gmail.com> <mailto:franco.niccolu...@gmail.com> 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 >>>>>>> <ste...@paveprime.org> <mailto: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 <mailto:ste...@paveprime.com> >>>>>>> LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/ >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> >>>>>>> <mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson >>>>>>> Sent: 26 August 2019 18:54 >>>>>>> To: Franco Niccolucci <franco.niccolu...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:franco.niccolu...@gmail.com>; George Bruseker >>>>>>> <george.bruse...@gmail.com> <mailto:george.bruse...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>; "Runa, Lucília" >>>>>>> <lucilia.r...@dglab.gov.pt> <mailto:lucilia.r...@dglab.gov.pt>; >>>>>>> Barbedo, Francisco <francisco.barb...@dglab.gov.pt> >>>>>>> <mailto: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> >>>>>>> <mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Franco Niccolucci >>>>>>> <franco.niccolu...@gmail.com> <mailto:franco.niccolu...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> Date: Monday, August 26, 2019 at 8:26 AM >>>>>>> To: George Bruseker <george.bruse...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:george.bruse...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> Cc: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> >>>>>>> <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>, ""Runa, Lucília"" >>>>>>> <lucilia.r...@dglab.gov.pt> <mailto:lucilia.r...@dglab.gov.pt>, >>>>>>> "Barbedo, Francisco" <francisco.barb...@dglab.gov.pt> >>>>>>> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>> <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> >>>>>>>> <mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Franco Niccolucci >>>>>>>> <franco.niccolu...@gmail.com> <mailto:franco.niccolu...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> Sent: 24 August 2019 19:45 >>>>>>>> To: Maria Jose de Almeida >>>>>>>> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto: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> <mailto: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 >>>>>>>>> <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 <mailto:m-jose.alme...@dglab.gov.pt> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Crm-sig mailing list >>>>>>>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>>>>>>>> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Crm-sig mailing list >>>>>>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> >>>>>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>>>>>>> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Crm-sig mailing list >>>>>>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> >>>>>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>>>>>>> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Crm-sig mailing list >>>>>>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> >>>>>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>>>>>>> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Crm-sig mailing list >>>>>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> >>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> >>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>>> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------ >>> Dr. Martin Doerr >>> >>> Honorary Head of the >>> >>> Center for Cultural Informatics >>> >>> Information Systems Laboratory >>> Institute of Computer Science >>> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) >>> >>> N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, >>> GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece >>> >>> Vox:+30(2810)391625 >>> Email: >>> mar...@ics.forth.gr <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> >>> >>> Web-site: >>> http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Crm-sig mailing list >>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> >>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> > > -- > ------------------------------------ > Dr. Martin Doerr > > Honorary Head of the > > Center for Cultural Informatics > > Information Systems Laboratory > Institute of Computer Science > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) > > N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, > GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece > > Vox:+30(2810)391625 > Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl> > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
