Hi all,
Here are some examples of databases that deal with individual or
collectivites of animals NOT as THINGS but as AGENTS:
EMU: Pest Tracking in Museums
http://help.emu.axiell.com/v6.4/en/Topics/EMu/Traps%20and%20Pest%20Events%20modules.htm
Here's a database that tracks the migratory paths of individual birds:
https://nationalzoo.si.edu/migratory-birds/migratory-birds-tracking-map
Here's a database that tracks orcas:
https://theorcaproject.wordpress.com/killer-whale-orca-database/
Here's a database that tracks gorillas:
https://www.gorillasland.com/la-plaine-zoo.php
I would say that often something doesn't get documented because it is
silenced by the information systems available (see the terrible
gorilla database), arguably what CIDOC CRM is supposed to aid in
getting out of (viz. Dominic's textual works issue and documenting
context). The fact that people are forced to shoehorn identifiable
individuals that they want to document and have discourse about into
classes that do not suit them is for me the obvious argument for
making classes and properties!
Whether there are explicit fields for such data, the natural world is
something which unsurprisingly Cultural Heritage is interested in and
refers to. Orcas are, for example, highly important animals within
different cultural systems in Canada, they are documented and they are
documented not as things but as agents. So what is the pressing
counter point to allowing this expressivity? That there are too many
classes and properties. Many would make that argument about CRMinf or
about any of our extensions. I suppose it depends on where you
interest lies. By not opening these categories we effectively
mute/suppress this voice. Because the limits of the world are my
language when we choose to oppress a class we choose to oppress the
ability to express that object. Or we indeed force the documentation
of things that are considered agents as objects. This seems the
greater harm to my mind.
On the expertise question, I am not sure if we required a biologist to
be able to model the notion of Birth or Death. Did we not use a middle
level understanding of everyday objects and their documentation in
systems in order to be support the recording of standard kinds of
facts of interest to a researcher? Birth and Death are not high
concepts of when conception begins or when the soul leaves the body,
they are rough and ready everyday ideas of, there was a person and an
event led to its end, there was a person and an event led to its
death. How the case of modelling animals differs is not clear to me.
Did we bring in financial experts model the payment class? On which
issues we need an expert and on which issues not is not clear, nor is
that expertise counts. As Rob says, having many years of experience in
cultural heritage documentation and analysis of such systems does not
count? I would think in basic matters like this, it goes back to the
ground of coming to a common sense modelling in line with what is
considered the best state of knowledge regarding the world. We KNOW
that the best state of knowledge is not represented by the present
modelling because agency is not just attributed to human beings.
Therefore, we are presently deliberately out of synch with the best
state of knowledge. I would think it behooves (pun intended) us to
step up to the plate and get on to making it possible to express basic
facts about the world that can be and are referenced in CH data
systems (such as the existence of animals!).
Best,
George
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 1:19 AM Pat Riva <pat.r...@concordia.ca>
wrote:
Hi Rob,
Looking at the dates on Lassie and Misha, I see that they were
created during the phase when people were trying this under an
unwise modification to RDA, and not been revised since. This would
no longer be valid under the latest RDA. And no one has bothered to
propose MARC coding specific to this type of heading, leading to the
ones that were created being shoe-horned into the personal name
coding. The proportion of the huge LC names file is too small.
As for the fictitious, that was a completely different argument
that has also lasted years. Stems from a difficulty in
distinguishing between a name and the reality behind it.
But these two issues are frequently conflated in the library world
by people trying to use discussion related to why one was invalid to
imply the position on the other issue didn't make sense.
The thing is that there is no problem about having a work about an
animal or about a character (as a concept), or have photographs,
films or sound recordings of an animal. but it doesn't make sense to
set up a relationship where these own an item, publish a
manifestation, write, compose or translate an expression, or create
a work. So the relationship is other.
And a person can choose a pseudonym of any sort (even one that
evokes a pet name or is the same as a fictional character), that
still doesn't make the person into a pet. Same as two people having
the "same" name doesn't fuse them into a single human being in some
sort of weird siamese twin situation.
Anyhow, I just wanted to to point out that there has been a lot of
ink spilled over these issues, to no real result.
Pat
Pat Riva
Associate University Librarian, Collection Services
Concordia University
Vanier Library (VL-301-61)
7141 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, QC H4B 1R6
Canada
pat.r...@concordia.ca
-------------------------
From: Robert Sanderson <azarot...@gmail.com>
Sent: October 11, 2021 5:16 PM
To: Pat Riva <pat.r...@concordia.ca>
Cc: Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr>; George Bruseker
<george.bruse...@gmail.com>; crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
<Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Non-human Actors
Attention This email originates from outside the concordia.ca [2]
domain. // Ce courriel provient de l'exterieur du domaine de
concordia.ca [2]
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 [3]
Misha the Dolphin: https://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/nb2017006372.html
[4]
And fictitious:
Odie (from Garfield):
https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2017122131.html [5]
Grumpy Cat: https://id.loc.gov/rwo/agents/n2013036964.html [6]
In ULAN, here's a racehorse/person:
https://www.getty.edu/vow/ULANFullDisplay?find=&role=&nation=&subjectid=500353456
[7]
ISNI has a dog/person called Maggie Mayhem:
https://isni.org/isni/ [8]0000000497302960
And so on.
Rob
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 4:50 PM Pat Riva via Crm-sig
<crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> 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
pat.r...@concordia.ca
-------------------------
From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of George
Bruseker via Crm-sig <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Sent: October 11, 2021 3:02 PM
To: Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
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
[9]
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
[10]
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/what-the-crow-knows/580726/?utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
[11]
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/oct/06/anicka-yi-tate-modern-turbine-hall-commission
[12]
All best,
George
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 9:44 PM Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr>
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 <mar...@ics.forth.gr>
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
[13] (draw.io [14])
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aCEBtXjW8M0W7qCGe9ozSMeYAH7tJ3Wr/view?usp=sharing
[15] (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: mar...@ics.forth.gr
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl [1]
--
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: mar...@ics.forth.gr
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl [1]
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig [16]
--
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
Links:
------
[1]
https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ics.forth.gr%2Fisl&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838964034138%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=o0ecAyLDntcn6tU3%2B%2F4DgFq50GBAzGW1291wi9QhdwE%3D&reserved=0
[2] http://concordia.ca
[3]
https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fid.loc.gov%2Fauthorities%2Fnames%2Fnb2015016669.html&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838963964170%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=hdNSl4RqY9oAtWoVxSp3xl9fCc21yLNCKsHF8lEspgs%3D&reserved=0
[4]
https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fid.loc.gov%2Frwo%2Fagents%2Fnb2017006372.html&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838963964170%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=0rU8nimUcSQsX0qHQI7H94Hs4w3ssLoOLPIB6fQdwBE%3D&reserved=0
[5]
https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fid.loc.gov%2Fauthorities%2Fnames%2Fno2017122131.html&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838963974165%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=QEy5XUWLQMwdpq9prYdI14FzZlkBkHvWmHIUrph%2FeQo%3D&reserved=0
[6]
https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fid.loc.gov%2Frwo%2Fagents%2Fn2013036964.html&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838963974165%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=LKk%2BIU6%2B1hjIcYA9lP%2F2cGVSF%2BhegeziH4ifUrOmcz8%3D&reserved=0
[7]
https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.getty.edu%2Fvow%2FULANFullDisplay%3Ffind%3D%26role%3D%26nation%3D%26subjectid%3D500353456&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838963984159%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=uq7x%2FB9sMhI%2Ba5WIBaE%2FYIZ1JqKCDROMhsE%2FqTHIl34%3D&reserved=0
[8]
https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fisni.org%2Fisni%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838963984159%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=kA1elOx%2BnZrSK8z8AkvhabyJQfHsRUAY%2FpP53dqgvfI%3D&reserved=0
[9]
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%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838963994155%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=IUWEJ56BvmZ9CUxoqHfOUPH7YMtOJtB4Yq4wTI72LxE%3D&reserved=0
[10]
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%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838963994155%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=u7qMs06srq%2BXVgyFkGkEXSEeUXfY29RpAWp%2Fr8Tw%2BWQ%3D&reserved=0
[11]
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%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838964004154%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=hZSt7ysLRKBeyeETe%2BRmi6QlK1BQB7oLdbSVT7J6x%2FY%3D&reserved=0
[12]
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%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838964004154%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=WcnY9gdVpszxHSnK9zefRS%2BtFt0yJJrEJEWny8vUqQ8%3D&reserved=0
[13]
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%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838964014148%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=oYtVlYXC2%2BlPBV8yCkJrG6Vnf5%2BtKLxKFmd2GqOy7xA%3D&reserved=0
[14]
https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdraw.io%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838964024142%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=vFQ2ff%2FsrgoDj9l5wadtrm79xY9tnLjCsYz%2Fzkrmnro%3D&reserved=0
[15]
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%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838964024142%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=PBU4cmiPCPHIwtRHrFLJPESTKnxyiT6BNUnAxl2RCvU%3D&reserved=0
[16]
https://can01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ics.forth.gr%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcrm-sig&data=04%7C01%7Cpat.riva%40concordia.ca%7Cc79309f39b794e1f071208d98cfc5da8%7C5569f185d22f4e139850ce5b1abcd2e8%7C0%7C0%7C637695838964044131%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=SHxfxsqdh5weZGetloicBmguvo1oTGPu3iJyDtjxIhc%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
