Re: [Crm-sig] Propose New Issue: Guidelines and Protocols for Translating CIDOC CRM

[Massoomeh Niknia via Crm-sig]

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
 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 
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 

Re: [Crm-sig] Propose New Issue: Guidelines and Protocols for Translating CIDOC CRM

[George Bruseker]

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 

Re: [Crm-sig] Propose New Issue: Guidelines and Protocols for Translating CIDOC CRM

[Franco Niccolucci]

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 Place”. 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) 

Re: [Crm-sig] Propose New Issue: Guidelines and Protocols for Translating CIDOC CRM

[Philippe Michon]

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:

   1.

   Google Docs translation templates
   2.

   Protocol to convert Google Doc Templates in Markdown (our goal is to
   publish on Github Pages)
   3.

   Stylesheet
   4.

   Index of CIDOC CRM entities (translated)
   5.

   Update protocol (e.g. 7.0 to 7.1)
   6.

   Spreadsheet for keeping track of the typos in the English version
   7.

   List of the translation challenges
   8.

   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  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 
> 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] Propose New Issue: Guidelines and Protocols for Translating CIDOC CRM

[Anaïs Guillem]

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 
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 

[Crm-sig] Propose New Issue: Guidelines and Protocols for Translating CIDOC CRM

[George Bruseker]

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