Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
Dear All, I suggest to extend the sense of /AP29 appears in/ to activity type. The current scope note (issue 294) talks about object types only. We can think of an "appears in" described by spacetime (E4 Period), "typically" using object types, /appearing under/ actor types, or "appearing within" Groups. The sense of "appears in" does not make claims that cannot be related to evidence. Opinions? On 3/10/2023 9:47 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote: I agree. I think there is still an open discussion how to document such things, but the research questions could be formulated. I agree that we must not fall in the trap to produce artificial discrimination by crisp classes between things that are in constant flow and transition. I think a good vocabulary for *associating particular*, *intellectually related *phenomena, core and wider, with all the flexibility of generalization, specialization and faceting, and the *subjectivity of the classifying* documentalist, and *properties explicating* *evidential influence* (reported by participants or observed) would serve all requirements for documentation, search and discovery and wider research. We want not to say:" this is Tango" and "this is not", we want to say "this appears to be an early form of Argentinian Tango performance" "exhibits elements of" etc. I think we could talk about general "appearance" of such phenomena in a E4 Period X and comprising people of type Y, where the evidential particulars are the support of the wider statement, without claiming boundaries nor coverage within these limits. The phenomena would be particular, observable manifestations of various kinds, performances, scores, songs, poems, oral literature, costumes, social meetings etc. By the way, I think Tango is much more complex than Rembetiko. There may be quite different heterogeneous forms and communities, an international industry creating Tango apparel, training business etc. Rembetiko is still quite confined, has musical rythmic and stylistic characteristics and is not (much) commercialized. Best, Martin On 3/10/2023 9:42 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote: It is as I wrote, an interesting question. The idea behind the development of the CRM is that it should be based on documented practice in the various disciplines and a be a formalization of this documented practice. It is not meant to be a general formal description of everything going on in the entire world. The use of fformal ontologies tends to push the documentation into structuralism. Structuralism is well suited as a basis for many things, but not all. Many cultural phenomena are better documented by free text essays. Best, Christian-Emil *From:* Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig *Sent:* 10 March 2023 07:48 *To:* Martin Doerr *Cc:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group Thank you all for your comments and contributions. None of the solutions proposed so far convinces me. Intangible heritage (Tango, for instance) is not the cumulation of many/all related activities/actors (Tango performances, Tango dancers, etc), which instead are related because they are all manifestations/performers of the same abstract concept. Rebetiko is even more difficult to characterize as it involves a particular lifestyle and individuals - the mangas in the past, perhaps now more a mood than a social class - and is often associated with the bouzouki. But of course it is not the mere addition of all this. I am not suggesting to study such concepts in greater detail, it may be off-topic. I think however that it is impossible to document monuments without addressing their intangible component. This came up when dealing with conservation: it is not just a matter to maintain their physical state, preserving their E3 Condition State which according to its scope note "describes the prevailing PHYSICAL condition of any material object”. Opening a Mac Donald in the Coliseum would not alter too much its E3, but would probably depreciate its value as a monument. best Franco http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- 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] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
I agree. I think there is still an open discussion how to document such things, but the research questions could be formulated. I agree that we must not fall in the trap to produce artificial discrimination by crisp classes between things that are in constant flow and transition. I think a good vocabulary for *associating particular*, *intellectually related *phenomena, core and wider, with all the flexibility of generalization, specialization and faceting, and the *subjectivity of the classifying* documentalist, and *properties explicating* *evidential influence* (reported by participants or observed) would serve all requirements for documentation, search and discovery and wider research. We want not to say:" this is Tango" and "this is not", we want to say "this appears to be an early form of Argentinian Tango performance" "exhibits elements of" etc. I think we could talk about general "appearance" of such phenomena in a E4 Period X and comprising people of type Y, where the evidential particulars are the support of the wider statement, without claiming boundaries nor coverage within these limits. The phenomena would be particular, observable manifestations of various kinds, performances, scores, songs, poems, oral literature, costumes, social meetings etc. By the way, I think Tango is much more complex than Rembetiko. There may be quite different heterogeneous forms and communities, an international industry creating Tango apparel, training business etc. Rembetiko is still quite confined, has musical rythmic and stylistic characteristics and is not (much) commercialized. Best, Martin On 3/10/2023 9:42 AM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote: It is as I wrote, an interesting question. The idea behind the development of the CRM is that it should be based on documented practice in the various disciplines and a be a formalization of this documented practice. It is not meant to be a general formal description of everything going on in the entire world. The use of fformal ontologies tends to push the documentation into structuralism. Structuralism is well suited as a basis for many things, but not all. Many cultural phenomena are better documented by free text essays. Best, Christian-Emil *From:* Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig *Sent:* 10 March 2023 07:48 *To:* Martin Doerr *Cc:* crm-sig@ics.forth.gr *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group Thank you all for your comments and contributions. None of the solutions proposed so far convinces me. Intangible heritage (Tango, for instance) is not the cumulation of many/all related activities/actors (Tango performances, Tango dancers, etc), which instead are related because they are all manifestations/performers of the same abstract concept. Rebetiko is even more difficult to characterize as it involves a particular lifestyle and individuals - the mangas in the past, perhaps now more a mood than a social class - and is often associated with the bouzouki. But of course it is not the mere addition of all this. I am not suggesting to study such concepts in greater detail, it may be off-topic. I think however that it is impossible to document monuments without addressing their intangible component. This came up when dealing with conservation: it is not just a matter to maintain their physical state, preserving their E3 Condition State which according to its scope note "describes the prevailing PHYSICAL condition of any material object”. Opening a Mac Donald in the Coliseum would not alter too much its E3, but would probably depreciate its value as a monument. best Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL Chief Technology Officer 4CH Editor-in-Chief ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 9 mar 2023, alle ore 20:23, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig ha scritto: > > Dear All, > > I suggest to make a case study with Rebetiko. It is a relatively confined tradition and living. We have access to a lot of material here in Greece. By the way, we met a young lady from India who came to Greece and has learned to play Rebetiko. > > I think we should look at phenomena and people influencing each other, protagonists, etc., of varying types appearing in a cultural space and time, in particular concentrating at specific places and times. People meeting in these performances and carrying the idea forward. A certain "density" keeps it alive, like a species surviving. I agree with Franco. > > Best, > > Martin > > On 3/9/2023 8:00 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I think this i
Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
Dear Franca,
The only answer may be 42. Based on my experience from studying 600 excavation
databases in depth and also from the Museum project 20 years ago where we
constructed artefact databases for the university museum, and converted data
into them, I have concluded that formal ontologies are good for indexing data
and interlink the data, but textual descriptions must be obligatory.
Best,
Christian-Emil
From: Franco Niccolucci
Sent: 10 March 2023 10:07
To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore
Cc: crm-sig
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
Dear Christina-Emile,
> Many cultural phenomena are better documented by free text essays.
Of course. Paraphrasing Borges ("Del rigor en la ciencia” 1946), the most
accurate ontology of the world is the world itself, including also this
ontology (as part of the world) in such world ontology.
> CRM [...] should be based on documented practice in the various disciplines
> and a be a formalization of this documented practice.
The practice of attaching intangible values to physical things to confirm that
these are heritage assets is well documented by UNESCO.
For example, the criteria for defining "Assisi, the Basilica of San Francesco
and Other Franciscan Sites” a World Heritage Site include:
“Criterion (vi) Being the birthplace of the Franciscan Order, Assisi has from
the Middle Ages been closely associated with the cult and diffusion of the
Franciscan movement in the world, focusing on the universal message of peace
and tolerance even to other religions or beliefs."
All UNESCO WHS criteria include similar statements relating the asset (or
“property”, as they call them) to intangible aspects.
I appreciate you and Martin qualified my question as “interesting”. As with
most questions, the answer would probably be even more interesting, but
unfortunately I have none.
Best,
Franco
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL
Chief Technology Officer 4CH
Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
> Il giorno 10 mar 2023, alle ore 08:42, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig
> ha scritto:
>
>
> It is as I wrote, an interesting question. The idea behind the development of
> the CRM is that it should be based on documented practice in the various
> disciplines and a be a formalization of this documented practice. It is not
> meant to be a general formal description of everything going on in the
> entire world. The use of fformal ontologies tends to push the documentation
> into structuralism. Structuralism is well suited as a basis for many things,
> but not all. Many cultural phenomena are better documented by free text
> essays.
>
> Best,
> Christian-Emil
>
> From: Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci
> via Crm-sig
> Sent: 10 March 2023 07:48
> To: Martin Doerr
> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
> Thank you all for your comments and contributions.
>
> None of the solutions proposed so far convinces me.
>
> Intangible heritage (Tango, for instance) is not the cumulation of many/all
> related activities/actors (Tango performances, Tango dancers, etc), which
> instead are related because they are all manifestations/performers of the
> same abstract concept.
>
> Rebetiko is even more difficult to characterize as it involves a particular
> lifestyle and individuals - the mangas in the past, perhaps now more a mood
> than a social class - and is often associated with the bouzouki. But of
> course it is not the mere addition of all this.
>
> I am not suggesting to study such concepts in greater detail, it may be
> off-topic.
>
> I think however that it is impossible to document monuments without
> addressing their intangible component. This came up when dealing with
> conservation: it is not just a matter to maintain their physical state,
> preserving their E3 Condition State which according to its scope note
> "describes the prevailing PHYSICAL condition of any material object”. Opening
> a Mac Donald in the Coliseum would not alter too much its E3, but would
> probably depreciate its value as a monument.
>
> best
>
> Franco
>
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Franco Niccolucci
> Director, VAST-LAB
> PIN - U. of Florence
> President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL
> Chief Technology Officer 4CH
>
> Editor-in-Chief
> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
>
> Piazza Ciardi 25
> 59100 Prato, Italy
>
>
>
>
> > Il giorno 9 mar 2023, alle ore 20:23, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
> > ha scritto:
> >
>
Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
Dear Christina-Emile,
> Many cultural phenomena are better documented by free text essays.
Of course. Paraphrasing Borges ("Del rigor en la ciencia” 1946), the most
accurate ontology of the world is the world itself, including also this
ontology (as part of the world) in such world ontology.
> CRM [...] should be based on documented practice in the various disciplines
> and a be a formalization of this documented practice.
The practice of attaching intangible values to physical things to confirm that
these are heritage assets is well documented by UNESCO.
For example, the criteria for defining "Assisi, the Basilica of San Francesco
and Other Franciscan Sites” a World Heritage Site include:
“Criterion (vi) Being the birthplace of the Franciscan Order, Assisi has from
the Middle Ages been closely associated with the cult and diffusion of the
Franciscan movement in the world, focusing on the universal message of peace
and tolerance even to other religions or beliefs."
All UNESCO WHS criteria include similar statements relating the asset (or
“property”, as they call them) to intangible aspects.
I appreciate you and Martin qualified my question as “interesting”. As with
most questions, the answer would probably be even more interesting, but
unfortunately I have none.
Best,
Franco
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL
Chief Technology Officer 4CH
Editor-in-Chief
ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
> Il giorno 10 mar 2023, alle ore 08:42, Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig
> ha scritto:
>
>
> It is as I wrote, an interesting question. The idea behind the development of
> the CRM is that it should be based on documented practice in the various
> disciplines and a be a formalization of this documented practice. It is not
> meant to be a general formal description of everything going on in the
> entire world. The use of fformal ontologies tends to push the documentation
> into structuralism. Structuralism is well suited as a basis for many things,
> but not all. Many cultural phenomena are better documented by free text
> essays.
>
> Best,
> Christian-Emil
>
> From: Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci
> via Crm-sig
> Sent: 10 March 2023 07:48
> To: Martin Doerr
> Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
> Thank you all for your comments and contributions.
>
> None of the solutions proposed so far convinces me.
>
> Intangible heritage (Tango, for instance) is not the cumulation of many/all
> related activities/actors (Tango performances, Tango dancers, etc), which
> instead are related because they are all manifestations/performers of the
> same abstract concept.
>
> Rebetiko is even more difficult to characterize as it involves a particular
> lifestyle and individuals - the mangas in the past, perhaps now more a mood
> than a social class - and is often associated with the bouzouki. But of
> course it is not the mere addition of all this.
>
> I am not suggesting to study such concepts in greater detail, it may be
> off-topic.
>
> I think however that it is impossible to document monuments without
> addressing their intangible component. This came up when dealing with
> conservation: it is not just a matter to maintain their physical state,
> preserving their E3 Condition State which according to its scope note
> "describes the prevailing PHYSICAL condition of any material object”. Opening
> a Mac Donald in the Coliseum would not alter too much its E3, but would
> probably depreciate its value as a monument.
>
> best
>
> Franco
>
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Franco Niccolucci
> Director, VAST-LAB
> PIN - U. of Florence
> President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL
> Chief Technology Officer 4CH
>
> Editor-in-Chief
> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
>
> Piazza Ciardi 25
> 59100 Prato, Italy
>
>
>
>
> > Il giorno 9 mar 2023, alle ore 20:23, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I suggest to make a case study with Rebetiko. It is a relatively confined
> > tradition and living. We have access to a lot of material here in Greece.
> > By the way, we met a young lady from India who came to Greece and has
> > learned to play Rebetiko.
> >
> > I think we should look at phenomena and people influencing each other,
> > protagonists, etc., of varying types appearing in a cultural space and
> > time, in particular concentrating at specific places and times. People
> > meeting in t
Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
It is as I wrote, an interesting question. The idea behind the development of the CRM is that it should be based on documented practice in the various disciplines and a be a formalization of this documented practice. It is not meant to be a general formal description of everything going on in the entire world. The use of fformal ontologies tends to push the documentation into structuralism. Structuralism is well suited as a basis for many things, but not all. Many cultural phenomena are better documented by free text essays. Best, Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig Sent: 10 March 2023 07:48 To: Martin Doerr Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group Thank you all for your comments and contributions. None of the solutions proposed so far convinces me. Intangible heritage (Tango, for instance) is not the cumulation of many/all related activities/actors (Tango performances, Tango dancers, etc), which instead are related because they are all manifestations/performers of the same abstract concept. Rebetiko is even more difficult to characterize as it involves a particular lifestyle and individuals - the mangas in the past, perhaps now more a mood than a social class - and is often associated with the bouzouki. But of course it is not the mere addition of all this. I am not suggesting to study such concepts in greater detail, it may be off-topic. I think however that it is impossible to document monuments without addressing their intangible component. This came up when dealing with conservation: it is not just a matter to maintain their physical state, preserving their E3 Condition State which according to its scope note "describes the prevailing PHYSICAL condition of any material object”. Opening a Mac Donald in the Coliseum would not alter too much its E3, but would probably depreciate its value as a monument. best Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL Chief Technology Officer 4CH Editor-in-Chief ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 9 mar 2023, alle ore 20:23, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig > ha scritto: > > Dear All, > > I suggest to make a case study with Rebetiko. It is a relatively confined > tradition and living. We have access to a lot of material here in Greece. By > the way, we met a young lady from India who came to Greece and has learned to > play Rebetiko. > > I think we should look at phenomena and people influencing each other, > protagonists, etc., of varying types appearing in a cultural space and time, > in particular concentrating at specific places and times. People meeting in > these performances and carrying the idea forward. A certain "density" keeps > it alive, like a species surviving. I agree with Franco. > > Best, > > Martin > > On 3/9/2023 8:00 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I think this is quite overstretching what an activity is. Of course we can >> make quick and dirty use of any class. I cannot imagine, how an "All Tango >> Performances" could be associated with a clear identity, unity and >> distinction from others. This would mean that any type of activity becomes >> an activity, isn't it? All specializations and generalizations would then be >> identical with part-of of activities? >> >> How would you then give an account of different strands of such traditions? >> This model virtually denies evolution and variation. I think that needs >> serious thought and a model which provides a much subtler relation between >> an idea, its execution and its evolution. >> >> Note, that any type is a Conceptual Object. Creating Tango as an E55 Type is >> a creation. I'd suggest to look at the new properties connecting Types with >> periods in which they appear. The challenge is, for me, not to provide a >> place to say "Tango is here", but to relate individual activities, >> performances, music, fashions, costumes etc along lines of evolution, >> variation and cross-fertalization. >> >> Best, >> >> Martin >> >> On 3/9/2023 6:33 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote: >>> I'm posting the following response text from Steve because the mailing list >>> software tosses his messages out: >>> >>> Just a quick thought. As you mention a set of individual performances (E7 >>> Activities) you could say that the individual performances (E7 Activity: >>> performance of Tango on particular day/time and at a particular place) P9i >>
Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
Thank you all for your comments and contributions. None of the solutions proposed so far convinces me. Intangible heritage (Tango, for instance) is not the cumulation of many/all related activities/actors (Tango performances, Tango dancers, etc), which instead are related because they are all manifestations/performers of the same abstract concept. Rebetiko is even more difficult to characterize as it involves a particular lifestyle and individuals - the mangas in the past, perhaps now more a mood than a social class - and is often associated with the bouzouki. But of course it is not the mere addition of all this. I am not suggesting to study such concepts in greater detail, it may be off-topic. I think however that it is impossible to document monuments without addressing their intangible component. This came up when dealing with conservation: it is not just a matter to maintain their physical state, preserving their E3 Condition State which according to its scope note "describes the prevailing PHYSICAL condition of any material object”. Opening a Mac Donald in the Coliseum would not alter too much its E3, but would probably depreciate its value as a monument. best Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL Chief Technology Officer 4CH Editor-in-Chief ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 9 mar 2023, alle ore 20:23, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig > ha scritto: > > Dear All, > > I suggest to make a case study with Rebetiko. It is a relatively confined > tradition and living. We have access to a lot of material here in Greece. By > the way, we met a young lady from India who came to Greece and has learned to > play Rebetiko. > > I think we should look at phenomena and people influencing each other, > protagonists, etc., of varying types appearing in a cultural space and time, > in particular concentrating at specific places and times. People meeting in > these performances and carrying the idea forward. A certain "density" keeps > it alive, like a species surviving. I agree with Franco. > > Best, > > Martin > > On 3/9/2023 8:00 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I think this is quite overstretching what an activity is. Of course we can >> make quick and dirty use of any class. I cannot imagine, how an "All Tango >> Performances" could be associated with a clear identity, unity and >> distinction from others. This would mean that any type of activity becomes >> an activity, isn't it? All specializations and generalizations would then be >> identical with part-of of activities? >> >> How would you then give an account of different strands of such traditions? >> This model virtually denies evolution and variation. I think that needs >> serious thought and a model which provides a much subtler relation between >> an idea, its execution and its evolution. >> >> Note, that any type is a Conceptual Object. Creating Tango as an E55 Type is >> a creation. I'd suggest to look at the new properties connecting Types with >> periods in which they appear. The challenge is, for me, not to provide a >> place to say "Tango is here", but to relate individual activities, >> performances, music, fashions, costumes etc along lines of evolution, >> variation and cross-fertalization. >> >> Best, >> >> Martin >> >> On 3/9/2023 6:33 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote: >>> I'm posting the following response text from Steve because the mailing list >>> software tosses his messages out: >>> >>> Just a quick thought. As you mention a set of individual performances (E7 >>> Activities) you could say that the individual performances (E7 Activity: >>> performance of Tango on particular day/time and at a particular place) P9i >>> forms part of a master E7 Activity (All Tango Performances). E7 Activity >>> (All Tango Performances) P16 used specific object E28 Conceptual >>> Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango). E7 Activity (All Tango >>> Performances) P14 carried out by E39 Actor(Tango Community) >>> You could also say: >>> E28 Conceptual Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango) P94i was created by >>> E65 Creation P14 carried out by E39 Actor(Tango Community) >>> This would make the community both the creator and performer of the >>> intangible heritage: which I believe is the current "best practice". >>> The timespan of the creation is of course open-ended as these are "living" >>> traditions. >>> HTH >>> SdS >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:57 PM George Bruseker >>> wrote: >>> I'd use the term 'forms of life' instead of 'intangible heritage'. Then the >>> likely closest CRM concept is E5 Event, at least if you want to be able to >>> associate to actors in any direct way. >>> >>> E5 Event "Tango" p11 had participant E74 Group. >>> >>> Probably to be more expressive one would need an
Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
Dear All, I suggest to make a case study with Rebetiko. It is a relatively confined tradition and living. We have access to a lot of material here in Greece. By the way, we met a young lady from India who came to Greece and has learned to play Rebetiko. I think we should look at phenomena and people influencing each other, protagonists, etc., of varying types appearing in a cultural space and time, in particular concentrating at specific places and times. People meeting in these performances and carrying the idea forward. A certain "density" keeps it alive, like a species surviving. I agree with Franco. Best, Martin On 3/9/2023 8:00 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote: Dear All, I think this is quite overstretching what an activity is. Of course we can make quick and dirty use of any class. I cannot imagine, how an "All Tango Performances" could be associated with a clear identity, unity and distinction from others. This would mean that any type of activity becomes an activity, isn't it? All specializations and generalizations would then be identical with part-of of activities? How would you then give an account of different strands of such traditions? This model virtually denies evolution and variation. I think that needs serious thought and a model which provides a much subtler relation between an idea, its execution and its evolution. Note, that any type is a Conceptual Object. Creating Tango as an E55 Type is a creation. I'd suggest to look at the new properties connecting Types with periods in which they appear. The challenge is, for me, not to provide a place to say "Tango is here", but to relate individual activities, performances, music, fashions, costumes etc along lines of evolution, variation and cross-fertalization. Best, Martin On 3/9/2023 6:33 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote: I'm posting the following response text from Steve because the mailing list software tosses his messages out: Just a quick thought. As you mention a set of individual performances (E7 Activities) you could say that the individual performances (E7 Activity: performance of Tango on particular day/time and at a particular place) P9i/forms part of/a master E7 Activity (All Tango Performances). E7 Activity (All Tango Performances) P16/used specific object/E28 Conceptual Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango). E7 Activity (All Tango Performances) P14/carried out by/E39 Actor(Tango Community) You could also say: E28 Conceptual Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango) P94i/was created by/E65 Creation P14/carried out by/E39 Actor(Tango Community) This would make the community both the creator and performer of the intangible heritage: which I believe is the current "best practice". The timespan of the creation is of course open-ended as these are "living" traditions. HTH SdS On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:57 PM George Bruseker wrote: I'd use the term 'forms of life' instead of 'intangible heritage'. Then the likely closest CRM concept is E5 Event, at least if you want to be able to associate to actors in any direct way. E5 Event "Tango" p11 had participant E74 Group. Probably to be more expressive one would need an extension for social life! On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:18 PM Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote: It is a good question. Also note that documentation of intangible cultural heritage is in most cases ttangible. According to UNESCO intangible cultural heritage is defined as Article 2 – Definitions For the purposes of this Convention, 1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development. 2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains: (a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; (b) performing arts;
Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
Dear All, I think this is quite overstretching what an activity is. Of course we can make quick and dirty use of any class. I cannot imagine, how an "All Tango Performances" could be associated with a clear identity, unity and distinction from others. This would mean that any type of activity becomes an activity, isn't it? All specializations and generalizations would then be identical with part-of of activities? How would you then give an account of different strands of such traditions? This model virtually denies evolution and variation. I think that needs serious thought and a model which provides a much subtler relation between an idea, its execution and its evolution. Note, that any type is a Conceptual Object. Creating Tango as an E55 Type is a creation. I'd suggest to look at the new properties connecting Types with periods in which they appear. The challenge is, for me, not to provide a place to say "Tango is here", but to relate individual activities, performances, music, fashions, costumes etc along lines of evolution, variation and cross-fertalization. Best, Martin On 3/9/2023 6:33 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote: I'm posting the following response text from Steve because the mailing list software tosses his messages out: Just a quick thought. As you mention a set of individual performances (E7 Activities) you could say that the individual performances (E7 Activity: performance of Tango on particular day/time and at a particular place) P9i/forms part of/a master E7 Activity (All Tango Performances). E7 Activity (All Tango Performances) P16/used specific object/E28 Conceptual Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango). E7 Activity (All Tango Performances) P14/carried out by/E39 Actor(Tango Community) You could also say: E28 Conceptual Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango) P94i/was created by/E65 Creation P14/carried out by/E39 Actor(Tango Community) This would make the community both the creator and performer of the intangible heritage: which I believe is the current "best practice". The timespan of the creation is of course open-ended as these are "living" traditions. HTH SdS On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:57 PM George Bruseker wrote: I'd use the term 'forms of life' instead of 'intangible heritage'. Then the likely closest CRM concept is E5 Event, at least if you want to be able to associate to actors in any direct way. E5 Event "Tango" p11 had participant E74 Group. Probably to be more expressive one would need an extension for social life! On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:18 PM Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig wrote: It is a good question. Also note that documentation of intangible cultural heritage is in most cases ttangible. According to UNESCO intangible cultural heritage is defined as Article 2 – Definitions For the purposes of this Convention, 1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development. 2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains: (a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; (b) performing arts; (c) social practices, rituals and festive events; (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; (e) traditional craftsmanship. Best, Christian-Emil *From:* Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig *Sent:* 09 March 2023 14:54 *To:* crm-sig *Subject:* [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group In the UNESCO List of World Intangible Heritage many items (= E28 Conceptual Object) are referred to specific gatherings of people - commonly named “communities” in
Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
I'm posting the following response text from Steve because the mailing list software tosses his messages out: Just a quick thought. As you mention a set of individual performances (E7 Activities) you could say that the individual performances (E7 Activity: performance of Tango on particular day/time and at a particular place) P9i *forms part of* a master E7 Activity (All Tango Performances). E7 Activity (All Tango Performances) P16 *used specific object* E28 Conceptual Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango). E7 Activity (All Tango Performances) P14 *carried out by* E39 Actor(Tango Community) You could also say: E28 Conceptual Object(Intangible Heritage of the Tango) P94i *was created by* E65 Creation P14 *carried out by* E39 Actor(Tango Community) This would make the community both the creator and performer of the intangible heritage: which I believe is the current "best practice". The timespan of the creation is of course open-ended as these are "living" traditions. HTH SdS On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:57 PM George Bruseker wrote: > I'd use the term 'forms of life' instead of 'intangible heritage'. Then > the likely closest CRM concept is E5 Event, at least if you want to be able > to associate to actors in any direct way. > > E5 Event "Tango" p11 had participant E74 Group. > > Probably to be more expressive one would need an extension for social life! > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:18 PM Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig < > crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > >> It is a good question. Also note that documentation of intangible >> cultural heritage is in most cases ttangible. According to UNESCO >> intangible cultural heritage is defined as >> >> Article 2 – Definitions >> For the purposes of this Convention, >> 1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, >> representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the >> instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – >> that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part >> of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted >> from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and >> groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and >> their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, >> thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the >> purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such >> intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international >> human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual >> respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable >> development. >> >> 2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, >> is manifested inter alia in the following domains: >> (a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of >> the intangible cultural heritage; >> (b) performing arts; >> (c) social practices, rituals and festive events; >> (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; >> (e) traditional craftsmanship. >> >> Best, >> Christian-Emil >> >> >> >> -- >> *From:* Crm-sig on behalf of Franco >> Niccolucci via Crm-sig >> *Sent:* 09 March 2023 14:54 >> *To:* crm-sig >> *Subject:* [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group >> >> In the UNESCO List of World Intangible Heritage many items (= E28 >> Conceptual Object) are referred to specific gatherings of people - commonly >> named “communities” in everyday's language - such as: >> >> Tango -> Argentina & Uruguay >> Rebetiko -> Greece >> Opera dei pupi (puppet theatre) -> Italy (Sicily) >> >> These geographic names in reality mean the people, the inhabitants (maybe >> not all of them): Argentinians, Uruguayos, Greeks, Sicilians i.e. the >> social groups who are the custodians/performers of these traditions. >> >> So two classes are involved >> 1) The group (Argentinians, Greeks, etc.) = E39 Actor >> 2) The conceptual object representing the intangible heritage (Tango, >> Rebetiko, etc.) = E28 Conceptual Object >> >> Note that intangibile heritage is NOT an activity, it is the abstraction >> of a set of activities and the way in which they are traditionally >> performed, which manifests through events/activities i.e. individual >> performances. >> >> Which property - if any - can be used to relate such E39 Actors to the >> corresponding E28? >> >> Thank you for any help on the above. >> >> Franco >> >> Prof. Franco Niccolucci >> Director, VAST-LAB >> PIN - U. of Florence >> President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL >> Chief Technology Officer 4CH >> >> Editor-in-Chief >> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) >> >> Piazza Ciardi 25 >> 59100 Prato, Italy >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>
Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
I'd use the term 'forms of life' instead of 'intangible heritage'. Then the likely closest CRM concept is E5 Event, at least if you want to be able to associate to actors in any direct way. E5 Event "Tango" p11 had participant E74 Group. Probably to be more expressive one would need an extension for social life! On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:18 PM Christian-Emil Smith Ore via Crm-sig < crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > It is a good question. Also note that documentation of intangible > cultural heritage is in most cases ttangible. According to UNESCO > intangible cultural heritage is defined as > > Article 2 – Definitions > For the purposes of this Convention, > 1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, > representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the > instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – > that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part > of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted > from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and > groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and > their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, > thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the > purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such > intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international > human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual > respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable > development. > > 2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is > manifested inter alia in the following domains: > (a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of > the intangible cultural heritage; > (b) performing arts; > (c) social practices, rituals and festive events; > (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; > (e) traditional craftsmanship. > > Best, > Christian-Emil > > > > -- > *From:* Crm-sig on behalf of Franco > Niccolucci via Crm-sig > *Sent:* 09 March 2023 14:54 > *To:* crm-sig > *Subject:* [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group > > In the UNESCO List of World Intangible Heritage many items (= E28 > Conceptual Object) are referred to specific gatherings of people - commonly > named “communities” in everyday's language - such as: > > Tango -> Argentina & Uruguay > Rebetiko -> Greece > Opera dei pupi (puppet theatre) -> Italy (Sicily) > > These geographic names in reality mean the people, the inhabitants (maybe > not all of them): Argentinians, Uruguayos, Greeks, Sicilians i.e. the > social groups who are the custodians/performers of these traditions. > > So two classes are involved > 1) The group (Argentinians, Greeks, etc.) = E39 Actor > 2) The conceptual object representing the intangible heritage (Tango, > Rebetiko, etc.) = E28 Conceptual Object > > Note that intangibile heritage is NOT an activity, it is the abstraction > of a set of activities and the way in which they are traditionally > performed, which manifests through events/activities i.e. individual > performances. > > Which property - if any - can be used to relate such E39 Actors to the > corresponding E28? > > Thank you for any help on the above. > > Franco > > Prof. Franco Niccolucci > Director, VAST-LAB > PIN - U. of Florence > President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL > Chief Technology Officer 4CH > > Editor-in-Chief > ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) > > Piazza Ciardi 25 > 59100 Prato, Italy > > > > > > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > ___ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
Re: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group
It is a good question. Also note that documentation of intangible cultural heritage is in most cases ttangible. According to UNESCO intangible cultural heritage is defined as Article 2 – Definitions For the purposes of this Convention, 1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development. 2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains: (a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; (b) performing arts; (c) social practices, rituals and festive events; (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; (e) traditional craftsmanship. Best, Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig Sent: 09 March 2023 14:54 To: crm-sig Subject: [Crm-sig] Relation between E28 Conceptual Object and E74 Group In the UNESCO List of World Intangible Heritage many items (= E28 Conceptual Object) are referred to specific gatherings of people - commonly named “communities” in everyday's language - such as: Tango -> Argentina & Uruguay Rebetiko -> Greece Opera dei pupi (puppet theatre) -> Italy (Sicily) These geographic names in reality mean the people, the inhabitants (maybe not all of them): Argentinians, Uruguayos, Greeks, Sicilians i.e. the social groups who are the custodians/performers of these traditions. So two classes are involved 1) The group (Argentinians, Greeks, etc.) = E39 Actor 2) The conceptual object representing the intangible heritage (Tango, Rebetiko, etc.) = E28 Conceptual Object Note that intangibile heritage is NOT an activity, it is the abstraction of a set of activities and the way in which they are traditionally performed, which manifests through events/activities i.e. individual performances. Which property - if any - can be used to relate such E39 Actors to the corresponding E28? Thank you for any help on the above. Franco Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence President, ARIADNE Research Infrastructure AISBL Chief Technology Officer 4CH Editor-in-Chief ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig ___ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
