Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Non-human Actors

[George Bruseker via Crm-sig]

Hi Athina!

What causes the bird to go from a to b, I guess is the simplest way to put
it. Does it just happen? Is the bird just present in the event of its
migration?

G

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 11:22 AM athinak  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am probably missing something here, but regarding these databases, in
> which cases these animals are documented as actors? It seems that there
> are documentations about births and traps and capturing events, but the
> discussion is about activities carried out by them, right? From my
> experience with gbif and darwincore, which a standard that is widely
> used for biodiversity databases, haven't seen definitions of this kind
> of relationships, but  maybe I am missing things
> or I misunderstood something
>
> BRs
> Athina
>
>   Στις 2021-10-12 10:02, George Bruseker via Crm-sig έγραψε:
> > 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 
> > 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Non-human Actors

[Dominic Oldman via Crm-sig]

Hi

Just for clarity (I'm not sure whether George's reference was to me), my 
argument was that there are many practical things we can do to encourage 
historical contextualisation with the CIDOC CRM without any model changes, 
which we should be paying more attention to, and this is related to the scope 
of traditional documentation practices and museum documentation worldviews. I 
think this is a significant and large issue. I will release a sub-committee 
statement addressing this during the week to the CRM SIG which covers wider 
contextualisation and issues like mutual respect.

I think I understand at a high level the broad issues on both sides of this 
argument, and I can see from the tone of the discussion that the disagreement 
requires further investigation, and I would certainly like the opportunity and 
time to talk to people and read about these issues myself.

It is key to me, and the reason I, and others, became involved in the ontology, 
that it adheres to certain scientific principles.

I think it would be helpful to restate these principles clearly so that at the 
very least we have a proper starting point for these discussions, which would 
also be helpful to anyone reading these discussions and wanting to contribute. 
I will initiate something along these lines.

Cheers,

Dominic


From: Crm-sig  on behalf of George Bruseker via 
Crm-sig 
Sent: 12 October 2021 08:18
To: Martin Doerr 
Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Non-human Actors

Hi Martin,

I'm also pressed for time but above wrote out an argument.

Best,
George

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:17 AM Martin Doerr 
mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
Hi George,

I'd prefer to let the biologists talk about that. To my best knowledge
of real cases, this is a much debated question. For the time being, I am
sorry I have no time to provide details.

All the best,

Martin


On 10/12/2021 10:02 AM, George Bruseker wrote:
> On the expertise question, I am not sure if we required a biologist to
> be able to model the notion of Birth or Death.


--

  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

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Non-human Actors

[athinak via Crm-sig]

Hello,

I am probably missing something here, but regarding these databases, in 
which cases these animals are documented as actors? It seems that there 
are documentations about births and traps and capturing events, but the 
discussion is about activities carried out by them, right? From my 
experience with gbif and darwincore, which a standard that is widely 
used for biodiversity databases, haven't seen definitions of this kind 
of relationships, but  maybe I am missing things

or I misunderstood something

BRs
Athina

 Στις 2021-10-12 10:02, George Bruseker via Crm-sig έγραψε:

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 
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 

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Non-human Actors

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Hi George,

I'd prefer to let the biologists talk about that. To my best knowledge 
of real cases, this is a much debated question. For the time being, I am 
sorry I have no time to provide details.


All the best,

Martin


On 10/12/2021 10:02 AM, George Bruseker wrote:
On the expertise question, I am not sure if we required a biologist to 
be able to model the notion of Birth or Death. 



--

 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

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Non-human Actors

[George Bruseker via Crm-sig]

Hi Martin,

I'm also pressed for time but above wrote out an argument.

Best,
George

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:17 AM Martin Doerr  wrote:

> Hi George,
>
> I'd prefer to let the biologists talk about that. To my best knowledge
> of real cases, this is a much debated question. For the time being, I am
> sorry I have no time to provide details.
>
> All the best,
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 10/12/2021 10:02 AM, George Bruseker wrote:
> > On the expertise question, I am not sure if we required a biologist to
> > be able to model the notion of Birth or Death.
>
>
> --
> 
>   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
>
>
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Non-human Actors

[George Bruseker via Crm-sig]

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  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