Dear All,
Thank you George for proposing this issue. I totally agree with this proposal. Due to our experience with translating the Model into Persian, Omid Hodjati and I answered to your questions. Please follow this link <https://qnssupport.nosa.com/forums/aft/256> to see the slides of our answers. I am looking forward to the discussion tonight! Kind regards, Massoomeh On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 10:23, George Bruseker <george.bruse...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks already for your valuable feedback and uptake on this proposal. I > am pleased to say that this issue has been added to the official CRM SIG > issue list: > > > http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-528-guidelines-and-protocols-for-translating-cidoc-crm > > It is also scheduled to be discussed in the afternoon session of the > upcoming SIG on Monday March 8th. I do hope everyone responding here and > all others interested in this topic will be available to share their > knowledge and help us move this subject forward. > > Sincerely, > > George > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 8:50 AM Franco Niccolucci < > franco.niccolu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> the appearance of this issue is the sign of the vitality, importance and >> diffusion of the CRM. >> >> Undertaking a transation poses a number of issues that need to be >> addressed before moving to practicalities. >> >> The “Canadian case” shows the need of complying with legal constraints. >> For example, if a country formally decides that the national standard for >> cultural heritage documentation is the CRM, the related decree will need to >> have an appendix with the CRM version approved, and I think that it would >> not be acceptable to include it in English, but it should be in that >> country’s national official language(s). Thus it is better to have an >> ‘approved' translation in advance, to guarantee that the ‘official’ text is >> a faithful one. This may also resolve contractual issues, for example with >> companies contracted to prepare heritage documentation compliant with CRM. >> >> On the other hand, using different translated versions of the CRM may - >> at least in principle - undermine its universality. Even if machine >> actionability would eventually be preserved, attention must be paid to the >> human side of the job, to guarantee that scope notes - for example - give >> the same meaning to labels acroos translations. >> >> What should be translated? Of course, the discursive part, as the >> introduction - the pages numbered with Roman numerals in the CRM >> description. But, they contain examples and references to Classes and >> Properties, for which the specific rules should apply. For example, the >> statement on page xi "In CIDOC CRM such statements of responsibility are >> expressed though knowledge creation events such as E13 Attribute >> Assignment and its relevant subclasses.” includes such a reference that >> must follow the translation rules for Class names. >> Another example is the “IsA” relationship. If translated, it contains the >> indeterminate article “A” which in some languages must follow the >> grammatical gender of the term it refers to, and thus gets two/three >> equivalents. So my choice would be to consider it as a symbol and keep it >> in English also in the translations. There may be other issues of this >> kind, so a general directive should be 1) established 2) accepted according >> to local constraints. I believe that the decision could be easy in this >> particular case; but it must be decided for all the similar occurrences. >> >> The above leads me to think that before undertaking any translation, the >> official English version should be examined to evaluate what is English - >> and may be translated - and what is symbolic and just seems English - not >> to be translated. IsA is an example, there may be others. The translation >> may be funny from a literary point of view (“Martin Doerr IsA un homme”), >> so an explanation could be given - maybe in a footnote - to help >> understandability. >> >> Naming conventions (pages xiv - xv) should of course be preserved. Here >> examples are given in Italic e.g. "*E53 Place. P122 borders with: E53 >> Plac*e”. I am not completely clear with the need of a full stop after >> Place (could be a typo from copy-paste), but also the use of Italic is >> introduced surreptitiously. By the way, it is maybe high time to establish >> a recommendation to standardize how to quote class and property names e.g. >> in articles, in order to distinguish them from plain discourse also >> typographically. >> >> Coming to scope notes, I think that only the symbolic parts should remain >> in English, i.e. the alphanumeric label e.g. “E1”. >> >> The above are just examples of what a preventive survey of the official >> English text will define as “not translatable”. In my opinion it wouldn’t >> take much time to fo it. >> >> The next step is what George calls “translation rules”. I am looking >> forward to fierce debates about the translation of “Human-made”, if it >> should follow the style of the Nusée de l’Homme (“fait par l’homme”) or >> choose a gender-neutral “anthropogenic” or whatever else. >> >> I agree with George on the necessity of general guidelines and protocols >> to translation. But since these depend on the culture behind the language >> into which the CRM is going to be translated, accepting them is not >> automatic: how can a native English (or Greek, or German) speaker decide >> what is better for Italian or French? So such protocols should be stated in >> a general form, and then implemented language by language, what brings us >> back to George’s topic about "What are the criteria for accepting a >> translation as official?” and who is in charge of it. There may be >> different levels of “acceptance”, e.g. a working text, a published >> translation for comments, a technically approved one and a linguistically >> approved one. I would feel confident enough to address the first three >> levels, but for the highest level I would need the support of linguists - >> better if official ones. >> >> To profit of what is already being undertaken, who decides if the French >> Canadian version is OK? Is there any potential conflict between what the >> SIG (or any judge established by it) decides and the decision by an >> officially established Canadian referee for effective bilingualism? >> >> Finally, copyright. The copyright statement in the title page of CRM >> documentation "Copyright © 2003 ICOM/CRM Special Interest Group” in my >> opinion sounds a bit old-fashioned and unpleasant, there are nowadays more >> appropriate licensing schemes that allow public open use, give appropriate >> recognition to authors, and protect the moral rights of those involved in >> the work, people and organizations, while avoiding any unauthorized >> commercial exploitation. In the era of Open Science it sounds a bit >> conservative. The same should apply to translations. >> >> As you may have understood from this long email, I am interested in the >> adventure, both in preparing the general framework and in supporting a >> translation into Italian. If useful, we can advertise the initiative >> through various networks, to inform those potentially interested in the job. >> >> Best regards >> >> Franco >> >> Prof. Franco Niccolucci >> Director, VAST-LAB >> PIN - U. of Florence >> Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus >> Technology Director 4CH >> >> Editor-in-Chief >> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) >> >> Piazza Ciardi 25 >> 59100 Prato, Italy >> >> >> Il giorno 26 feb 2021, alle ore 23:31, Philippe Michon < >> illipm...@gmail.com> ha scritto: >> >> Dear all, >> >> As this issue arises from a discussion between George and us at the >> Canadian Heritage Information Network (CHIN), I just wanted to confirm that >> we are greatly interested in this issue. >> >> The main reason is that we must have a French version in order to be able >> to use CIDOC CRM within our organization. Indeed, we have rules on >> bilingualism that oblige us to have a quality French equivalent (that meets >> the quality and maintenance standards of governmental agencies) in some >> strict time limits of the standards to which we refer. >> >> We are contributing to the French translation initiative presented by >> Anaïs. In addition, for administrative reasons, we are in the process of >> setting up a specific translation process for the Canadian team. >> >> Of course, we will share with you as soon as possible the documents that >> we will make publicly available to our editors and partners. Here is a list >> of what we plan to share in the coming year: >> >> • Google Docs translation templates >> • Protocol to convert Google Doc Templates in Markdown (our goal is to >> publish on Github Pages) >> • Stylesheet >> • Index of CIDOC CRM entities (translated) >> • Update protocol (e.g. 7.0 to 7.1) >> • Spreadsheet for keeping track of the typos in the English version >> • List of the translation challenges >> • Best practices for translation >> >> We hope that our work will serve as a foundation for the development of >> general recommendations and protocols in order to further democratize CIDOC >> CRM. >> >> We look forward to participating in discussions concerning this issue. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Philippe >> >> >> >> Le jeu. 25 févr. 2021 à 12:23, Anaïs Guillem <anais.guil...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> Hi CRM-lovers, >> I would like to follow up on George's email about the translation. In >> October 2019, a group of French archaeologists and CH specialists expressed >> an interest to translate the latest version and the future version 7 in >> order to disseminate CIRDOC CRM more easily. Now, the project of >> translation is international (France, Belgium and Canada) and a >> collaborative effort. It is mostly inspired by Wiki contributions and >> everything is done in Gitlab with version control. The group meets (via >> Zoom) once a month to establish some priorities and discuss the different >> issues. >> >> The project is open to anyone interested in contributing to the >> translation in French: you just need a Huma-Num account. >> https://gitlab.huma-num.fr/bdavid/doc-fr-cidoc-crm >> >> The translation files could be used for translations in other languages. >> The diagrams are also in the process of translation. The translation issues >> are discussed in the Gitlab issues. The how-to is explained in the Wiki >> section of the gitlab project. >> >> It would be very interesting to know if there are currently other >> translations projects in other languages to compare the process and >> methodology. The git repository could be cloned if another group wants to >> translate the ontology in another language. >> >> Have a nice afternoon, >> Cheers >> Anais >> >> >> Le jeu. 25 févr. 2021 à 08:23, George Bruseker <george.bruse...@gmail.com> >> a écrit : >> Dear all, >> >> With the advent of CIDOC CRM 7.1, a new stable community version (aimed >> for ISO approval) of the CIDOC CRM is established. This is the occasion for >> the broader community wishing to implement the standard on a stable basis >> to invest and engage with a mature ontological specification and text. >> >> A key aspect of this work at the community implementation level is to >> render the standard in various languages so that it can be studied, >> appropriated and applied without linguistic barriers by different >> linguistic and cultural communities around the world. >> >> Towards this end, the task of translation is key and an important >> intellectual process and product of the CIDOC CRM community in its own >> right. >> >> The formulation of open, transparent and regular protocols and processes >> for creating a translation would thus be a crucial groundwork to lay out in >> order to give the appropriate support and weight to the translation efforts >> of the CIDOC CRM semantic data community. >> >> At present, a search of the website (using the website search tools) >> returns only one article regarding translation. It is an issue from 2002 ( >> http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-58-how-to-organize-the-translation-of-the-model) >> on how to organize the translation of the CIDOC CRM. >> >> It would seem then that there is a need to pick up this issue again and >> address its various aspects (especially given the phenomenal growth of the >> CIDOC CRM uptake and the spread of its use to different linguistic >> communities around the world). >> >> It seems prudent therefore to communallly create a formulation of >> guidelines for translation best practice and, separately, open and explicit >> protocols for submission and acceptance of CIDOC CRM translations, to be >> developed and put into action by the community. >> >> The spirit of the guidelines and protocols should be to make a >> transparent space for engaging in this important work and understanding its >> relation to the overall CIDOC CRM community effort. It should aim to >> support existing translation efforts and provide an obvious, open and >> transparent path for additional translation efforts. >> >> Of consideration for inclusion in these guidelines and protocols are the >> following topics: >> >> Protocol for Starting an Official Translation >> >> Who can start an official translation, are there any preconditions? >> >> Protocol for Accepting an Official Translation >> >> What are the criteria for accepting a translation as official? >> >> When do the translated classes and properties pass into the >> serializations? >> >> Is there recognition of the translating group in the serialization (for >> the respective translation element) >> >> Recommended Tools for Supporting Translation >> >> Are there any tools recommended for supporting translation? Any >> recommended methods? >> >> Networks of Support (Community of Translation Projects) >> >> The translation of the CIDOC CRM is the translation of an aimed for >> neutral ontological description of CH data. The translation of the standard >> requires a creative effort to understand and elucidate the conceptual >> objects specified in the ontology. Given the complexity of this effort >> involving philosophical, computer science and cultural heritage specific >> knowledge, the process can be quite challenging. Sharing experiences across >> language translations may help eludicate problems in understanding the >> standard or finding useful philosophic correlate expressions in different >> languages. >> >> Do/can we facilitate a place of exchange on these topics? >> >> Means of Approaching (Ontological Translation Methodology) >> >> Are there better or worse methods for approaching the translation task as >> such? >> >> E.g.: should one translate classes and properties from E1 to En, P1 to Pn >> or should one follow the ontological hierarchy? >> >> What are key terms that might best be approached first in order to >> support the general translation? (E.g.: Space Time Volume?) >> >> Change Management - Version Compare >> >> What is the best way to manage iteration between version and efficient >> translation? (don’t want to retranslate all if possible) >> >> Place of Publication of Translation and Level of Recognition >> >> Where are official translations published? Are they sufficiently visible? >> What is their relation to serializations? >> >> Copyright Issues >> >> Under what copyright should translations be made? >> >> Infrastructure to Support Publication / Promotion of Translations >> >> Is there any? Should there be any? >> >> Template for Translators’ Introduction >> >> The translation work in itself is another intellectual work which >> requires many important choices and requires the introduction of an >> interpretation of meaning and sense. A translator’s introduction then would >> be important in order to convey important decisions and methodological >> choices. Should this be standardized? >> >> The above represents a first set of ideas. I propose we have a general >> discussion of this question and see if there is interest and capacity in >> the membership to create such guidelines and protocols. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> >> -- >> Anaïs Guillem >> Architect-archaeologist >> +33 630005089 >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> >> -- >> Philippe Michon >> Semantic Web Analyst >> Canadian Heritage Information Network >> philippe.mic...@canada.ca >> illipm...@gmail.com >> https://name.pn/philippe-michon >> >> Analyste en web sémantique >> Réseau canadien d'information sur le patrimoine >> philippe.mic...@canada.ca >> illipm...@gmail.com >> https://name.pn/philippe-michon >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> >> _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > -- Massoomeh Niknia, PhD Information Studies Kharazmi University| Tehran, Iran https://sites.google.com/view/niknia
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
