Dear Martin, The conversation began with a use case from an archive. I just inform that this is also found in all the projects I work on for memory institutions. They find it in scope, so looking further afield for what anthropologists do doesn't seem like a necessary step? Though highly fascinating!
Best George On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 6:58 PM Martin Doerr <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear George, All, > > As a second thought: > > I think documentation formats such as LIDO are an adequate place to add > such useful properties to characterize items in a more detailed way, we > would not put in the CRM analytically. Shapes, colors etc. being typical > examples. > > Question: Are there formats from the archival world that use to describe > the languages people speak? EAD CFP? > Libraries are interested in the languages someone publishes in, not > speaking. > > What are the anthropologists registering? Would they be interested in > languages learned at school, or rather in the language used for > communication in a typical group? Would they document people being > incapable of communicating in that group? > Or just infer language via group? > > How to distinguish native speakers from non-native? > > Would historians make cases of people that could not communicate in a > given language, with societal effects? > > What about illiterate people? Speaking, not writing...? Maintaining oral > history with great precision, etc. > > What about creoles ? > > Best, > > Martin > > On 10/14/2019 7:33 PM, Martin Doerr wrote: > > > Dear George, > > The first principle of all is are there relevant queries that need that > property for integrating disparate sources, which indeed provide such data, > and is that research one we like to support with the CRM? > > Second, using p2 on E21 does the job, doesn't it? What is the added value > of "knows language"? > > Next principle, keep the ontology small. Querying 1000 properties is > already more than anybody can keep in mind. Each additional property has an > implementation cost. We need strong arguments for relevance. > > It has been the mos t important success factor of the CRM to keep the > ontology small and still expressive enough. If we loose this discipline, we > will loose the whole project. > > Finally, we are not repeating in the CRM the way typically information > systems document, but always tried to find a more fundamental > representation. With that argument, we could never have introduced events. > They did NOT appear in any of the typical systems at that time. It is a > principle *not *to model all the valuable description elements, which are > relevant to characterize an item, but not creating interesting links across > resources. > > I did not say that it is a personal opinion that someone speaks a > language. I said, this is observable. I document: Franco has spoken Latin, > repeatedly? But talking about skills, is another level, it introduces a > quality, which is hard to objectify, as Franco has pointed out. Actually, > it is a typical classification problem, with all its boundary case > questions, and the CRM is about relations between particulars. > > So, what is the* added value* against p2, and what are the typical > research data and typical research questions for *integrating* such data, > that cannot be answered with P2? > > Best, > > martin > > > > > On 10/14/2019 4:24 PM, George Bruseker wrote: > > 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 > > > -- > ------------------------------------ > 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: [email protected] > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing > [email protected]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: [email protected] > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >
