Hi Pat, While that is certainly true from a model-theoretic perspective, in practice authorities simply create Persons for them which is, in my opinion, even worse because there is a demonstrated need which the modeling is intentionally preventing.
For example in the Library of Congress: Real animal/people: Lassie: https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/nb2015016669.html Misha the Dolphin: https://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/nb2017006372.html And fictitious: Odie (from Garfield): https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2017122131.html Grumpy Cat: https://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/n2013036964.html In ULAN, here's a racehorse/person: https://www.getty.edu/vow/ULANFullDisplay?find=&role=&nation=&subjectid=500353456 ISNI has a dog/person called Maggie Mayhem: https://isni.org/isni/0000000497302960 And so on. Rob On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 4:50 PM Pat Riva via Crm-sig <[email protected]> wrote: > Just to remark that the library world discussed non-human actors for many > years (in the literal sense of actor as in the dogs that portrayed Lassie > in the TV series, or that portrayed Sykes and Paddy from Midsomer Murders, > somehow it is always cute dogs that are brought up in the discussion). > > The desire was to list the named animal actors in the credits for the cast > of a film and provide access via their "real" names the same as for the > rest of the cast, and so using the same mechanisms as for human actors. > > This sounds like it might be fine until you realize that making the dog a > valid LRM-E6 Agent means that it can have the full range of responsibility > relationships to works, expressions, manifestations and items. Which > becomes absurd. > > And while is it understood that one can easily film an individual animal, > it isn't clear that it is behaving as an actor intending to create a > cinematographic work in the same way that the human participants. There was > also no clear consensus on which sorts of animals were individually > interesting enough to merit this treatment, rather than just being viewed > as an instance of their species (as in nature documentaries). > > The animal agent option was rejected in FRBR and again rejected in LRM, > and a LRM-E6 Agent (= E39 Actor) remains restricted to either individual > human beings (LRM-E7 Person) or groups of human beings (LRM-E8 Collective > Agent, or F55 Collective Agent in LRMoo). > > The current compromise is that the animal actors, if it is desired to > provide access points for them, are established as instances of a > subcategory of LRM-E1 Res that is disjoint from LRM-E6 Agent. There was > talk of creating some guidelines for this at one point, but I have not > followed the issue since then. > > Pat > > Pat Riva > > Associate University Librarian, Collection Services > > Concordia University > > Vanier Library (VL-301-61) > > 7141 Sherbrooke Street West > > Montreal, QC H4B 1R6 > > Canada > > [email protected] > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of George > Bruseker via Crm-sig <[email protected]> > *Sent:* October 11, 2021 3:02 PM > *To:* Martin Doerr <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Non-human Actors > > Hi Martin, > > I think Rob listed in the introduction to the issue the use cases of > documentation of individual action of animals. > > It would seem that natural scientists don't only study species but also > individuals. > > Here's a smattering of pieces culled from casual reading in the past few > weeks with nice motivations and examples for these new classes. > > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/29/new-zealand-kea-can-use-touchscreens-but-cant-distinguish-between-real-and-virtual-worlds > <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2021%2Fsep%2F29%2Fnew-zealand-kea-can-use-touchscreens-but-cant-distinguish-between-real-and-virtual-worlds&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7C3d1d139359704ba3a2fa08d98cea74cd%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695760889146006%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Qly1xg9bGcR0%2FZWH5dwICS2zXz%2BWuSOkzbQhvHwefc8%3D&reserved=0> > > > https://www.businessinsider.com/watch-australias-google-delivery-drone-attacked-by-raven-mid-air-2021-9?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=sf-insider-inventions&utm_medium=social > <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fwatch-australias-google-delivery-drone-attacked-by-raven-mid-air-2021-9%3Futm_source%3Dfacebook.com%26utm_campaign%3Dsf-insider-inventions%26utm_medium%3Dsocial&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7C3d1d139359704ba3a2fa08d98cea74cd%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695760889146006%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=NJHbjnrxhwJY3hudaCNkl%2F8B0QFMo5lqKXqiir2RyhM%3D&reserved=0> > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/what-the-crow-knows/580726/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook > <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fmagazine%2Farchive%2F2019%2F03%2Fwhat-the-crow-knows%2F580726%2F%3Futm_campaign%3Dthe-atlantic%26utm_medium%3Dsocial%26utm_source%3Dfacebook&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7C3d1d139359704ba3a2fa08d98cea74cd%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695760889156001%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=otC6lhsQU9HtCPECQy%2BN1LWTv%2BA98AbIbggAfRUo2wQ%3D&reserved=0> > > > https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/oct/06/anicka-yi-tate-modern-turbine-hall-commission > <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fartanddesign%2F2021%2Foct%2F06%2Fanicka-yi-tate-modern-turbine-hall-commission&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7C3d1d139359704ba3a2fa08d98cea74cd%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695760889156001%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2FRwZGzdfpyOdxUfCpLbg7NB9LWqOqsg1oA6Y4Tq%2FgC4%3D&reserved=0> > > > All best, > > George > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 9:44 PM Martin Doerr <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > Having collaborated with natural history museum colleagues for some years > and designed a research infrastructure for biodiversity in Greece, I > understand that they normally do not describe the actions of an individual > in a way that information integration on the base of the individual's > animal actions would be needed. They would rather state the fact that an > individual of type A, showed individual behavior pattern B. They would > integrate these data on a type base, and not on an individual base. We have > at FORTH converted Darwin Core data of occurrences of individuals into > CRMsci representations. That had so far covered the needs. > > A colleague in Britain had used, I think, CRM for modelling observations > of Caledonian Crow observations. Since these crows do not travel, the > relevant information access and exchange is still on a categorical level. > > Migratory birds tracking may be an application, but normally they do not > describe other behavior than move, in which case we can use a Presence > construct for the migration paths. > > Our collaboration with NHM showed that they often prefer not to use CRM > for their observation data. In a large European Project, we were forced to > cheat and rename all CRM concepts, so that they appeared under a "BIO" > title. > > So, in short, we need an expert that would show us practice of modelling > animal actions individually, and be willing to consider CRM... > > Cheers, > > Martin > > On 10/11/2021 9:13 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > > Could we clarify what sort of expert we're looking for to move the > discussion forward? In particular, natural history museums seem to be at > the critical intersection between CIDOC and the activities of animals. I > can represent the sorts of documentary evidence from that side, and happy > to reach out to colleagues at other NHMs. So I think the first aspect is > covered, but I question whether we (as modelers of museum knowledge and > documentation) /need/ to understand animal individuality or behavior in > order to take the first step of describing an animal performing some > action. Conversely, my experience has always been that when there is > something to react to, it is much easier to engage with outside > specialists. It is easier to ask for opinions on something than it is to > ask them to help come up with the interdisciplinary model. > > I also don't think it makes sense to model animal actors in great detail, > down to the same level as the differences between classes in CRMTex for > example. The baseline that we need to start with is much simpler. If there > isn't a fine grained concept of animal individuality, I don't think that > means we can't model an individual animal at a coarser granularity, just > that we shouldn't allow the ontology to describe anything that we don't > understand. Even as a non-biologist, I know without any hesitation that the > bird laid the egg in the nest in the Peabody Museum of Natural History, and > that the herd of dinosaurs created the footprints preserved in Dinosaur > State Park up the road from us. I know that a sheepdog can herd sheep and > makes decisions about which way to run to accomplish the aim of getting > the sheep into the next field (and when I was a little lad played the part > of such a sheepdog for my uncle in New Zealand). How does the sheepdog > know? Does it know that it knows? If we study 100 sheepdogs individually > and in groups, what do we learn about sheepdog behavior? I don't care, and > I don't think any other museum oriented documentation system would either :) > > Rob > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:50 AM Martin Doerr <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear George, Robert, > > This makes generally sense to me as a discussion starting point. However, > I‘d like to remind you that our methodology requires first a community > practice of doing documentation about such things, and second domain > experts for concepts that are not our primary knowledge. > > To my best knowledge, there does not exist any reliable concept of what > individuality means across the animal kingdom, nor what a collective of > such individuals is. There is an unbelievable complexity to these > questions. We know from experience that any global widening of scope can > blur all distinctions ontology enginerring relies on. Therefore I'd regard > it as most important to find the experts first and let them speak. > > The reasons why we did not model animal actors is precisely the lack of an > experts group to communicate with. > > Best, > > Martin > > > On 10/11/2021 4:28 PM, George Bruseker wrote: > > Dear all, > > In preparation for the discussion of non-human actors as related to use > cases arising in Linked.Art (inter alia), Rob and I have sketched some > ideas back and forth to try to find a monotonic was to add the agency of > animals in the first instance into CRM (proceeding in an empirical bottom > up fashion) and then see where else we might also get added in (searching > for the sibling class that Martin suggests and the generalization that it > would need). > > The linked sketch provides a proposal for discussion. The background is > given already in this issue. > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RtKBvAH1N0G8yaE_io6hU2Z8MTBmH_8-/view?usp=sharing > <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F1RtKBvAH1N0G8yaE_io6hU2Z8MTBmH_8-%2Fview%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7C3d1d139359704ba3a2fa08d98cea74cd%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695760889165996%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=X1Gnd0NVTOuGF%2Ftc6YTMQuqWXGVZbooiX2VcmOB%2Fjkw%3D&reserved=0> > (draw.io > <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdraw.io%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7C3d1d139359704ba3a2fa08d98cea74cd%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695760889175986%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=uqRW54XbraYWqAV8mg%2FOWz1robTNBzzySGFBALQjsHE%3D&reserved=0> > ) > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aCEBtXjW8M0W7qCGe9ozSMeYAH7tJ3Wr/view?usp=sharing > <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F1aCEBtXjW8M0W7qCGe9ozSMeYAH7tJ3Wr%2Fview%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7C3d1d139359704ba3a2fa08d98cea74cd%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695760889175986%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=nn%2BU2U5PO11R%2BHtjKfA%2BK97EK2yUhWuI5HpMJDlwen4%3D&reserved=0> > (png) > > > Here is some argumentation. > > Up to now, CRM takes its scope as related to documenting intentional acts > of human beings. Its top level class then has been E39 Actor which gives > properties which allow the assigning of responsibility for an intentional > activity. It has two subclasses, E21 Person and E74 Group. These two kinds > of being have different behaviour, therefore properties, therefore classes. > > If we expand the scope (in base or in sci or wherever) to include animal > agency in the first instance, then we must have a way to monotonically > generate this extension (we don't want to just expand the scope of E39 > Actor because then we will end up with rabbits being responsible for > financial crises and murders and all sorts of nonsense). > > So we want to introduce a sibling class for E39 Actor. Call this > biological agent. Instances can be anything biological. This would > obviously be some sort of a superclass of E21 Person, since all persons are > biological actors as well. It would be a subclass of biological object > since all biological agents must be biological. (but not all things > biological are biological agents) > > Then we would want a general class that subsumes the agency of purely > human actors and biological agents. This would be our top class. Here we > come up with a more general notion of agency. Whereas E39 Actor was > declared in order to account for a 'legal persons notion' of agency common > to Western legal systems etc. (and is perfectly adequate for the scope of > CRM Base), this would be a broader notion of agency. > > In order to avoid impossible philosophical arguments around self > consciousness, we can give a more externalist scope note / intension to > this class. Agency has to do with those entities which display self > organization and action towards an end from an external perspective. This > way we avoid having to know if the other really has a self. If it looks > like it is acting intentionally and people document it as such, then so it > is. > > This now gives us a super class (and eventually super properties) for all > agents. > > But wait... we need more. > > CRMBase distinguishes between persons and groups. Whereas persons must > have both agency and be individuated corporeal beings, groups do not. > Persons are atomic and irreducible (can't be made up of more persons, can't > be spread over multiple bodies / time zones). Groups are composed of > persons and groups. Groups are inherently collective. > > If we wish then to have this same distinction reflected into the > biological domain we would need a class for individual biological agents > parallel / sibling to person and a class for collective biological agents, > parallel / sibling to group. > > Doing this one would then need the superclasses to subsume these > divisions. Hence: > > Individual Agent: subclass of Agent, superclass of individual biological > agent > > Collective Agent: subclass of Agent, superclass of collective biological > agent and human group > > This finally allows us to have: > > Individual Biological Agent: subclass of Biological Agent and Individual > Agent: used for individual birds, trees, and other biological actors > > Collective Biological Agent: subclass of Biological Agent and Collective > Agent: used for flocks, forests and other group biological actors (unlike > human groups, such groups are inherently corporeal) > > And at that point we might consider renaming our existing classes to > 'human' xxx > > So > > E39 Human Agent: subclass of agent, no real change in intension, the kind > of entity that can take action for which legal responsibility can be > attributed within human cultures societies > > E21 Human Person: no real change in intension but its superclass becomes > individual biological agent and human agent (ie an animal that can be held > legallly responsible for its actions) > > E74 Group no real change in intension, but it gains a super class > Collective Agent so it can be queried together with other agent groups. > > This analysis does not get into the properties which are, of course, > fundamental but sketches a possible path for creating the structure > necessary to create this extension of scope in such a way that it would > respect the principle of monotonicity in revising the model while allowing > the growth of the model to handle the many use cases of documented animal > agency that fall within CH institution's documentary scope. > > Hope this is a good starting point for a constructive discussion! > > 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 > <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ics.forth.gr%2Fisl&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7C3d1d139359704ba3a2fa08d98cea74cd%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695760889185979%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2FNm5t6lEYf05r1bo63L%2FwJ9UNL8p6%2Bd85fq7WxGIFhc%3D&reserved=0> > > > > -- > Rob Sanderson > Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata > Yale University > > > > -- > ------------------------------------ > 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 > <https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ics.forth.gr%2Fisl&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7C3d1d139359704ba3a2fa08d98cea74cd%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695760889185979%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2FNm5t6lEYf05r1bo63L%2FwJ9UNL8p6%2Bd85fq7WxGIFhc%3D&reserved=0> > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
