All
Back to the language characteristics of names and titles ...
First, to recap more detail about the LRMer and RDA treatment of 'names'.
The LRMer uses the class Nomen, defined as "An association between an entity and a designation that refers to it". All instances of the class are reifications of the statement "This instance of an entity has an appellation that is this designation". The designation is known as a 'nomen string', and it is the datatype object of the property LRM-R13 "has appellation". The property declares a range of Nomen, so an instance of nomen is an object type object of the property. The reification is used to distinguish instances of the same designator being assigned to multiple instances of one entity or multiple entities.
RDA implements Nomen and "has appellation" by distinguishing three categories of designation/appellation: name/title; access point, identifier. RDA does not treat an IRI as a nomen; that is, all appellations are strings, and a nomen IRI is a "thing". RDA adds sub-properties of LRM-R13 that are specific to these categories, but does not sub-class Nomen. The ontological distinction of the categories lies in the kind of agent/actor who assigns the designation/appellation, the syntax of the nomen string, and the context of its application in bibliographic metadata. A name/title is assigned by a creator of an information resource in the syntax of common discourse and the context of promoting the resource to its user; an access point is assigned by a creator of metadata for the resource and instances of associated entities in the syntax of a 'string encoding scheme', 'authority file', etc. and the context of collocating the instances in an ordered list; an identifier is assigned by a creator of metadata for instances of any entity in the syntax of an identifier assignment scheme that is typically mediated through an algorithm and the context of direct access to the resource when the identifier is known.
RDA does not expect an identifier to be based on language or translatable; the relationship between two identifiers for the same entity is a 'mapping', not a translation. [RDA does not forbid this; two identifiers that are based on a name or title that is translated might be considered to be translated themselves. This often occurs in official publications of multi-lingual governments.]
RDA does not expect an access point to be translated. The component strings of two access points for the same instance may be different language versions, but they are assembled into the structured strings of each access point by applying the same string encoding scheme; the result is two distinct access points, not a translation of one access point into another. This is illustrated by VIAF (Virtual International Authority File) which labels individual access points by assigning agency, not language. [Again, this is not forbidden in RDA.]
RDA expects titles of manifestations to be translated. Some manifestations bear statements of title, responsible agents, and other associated entities such as place of publication in multiple languages and scripts ("parallel statements") but is rare for names of persons to be 'translated'. Some manifestations are subsequent translations of an existing manifestation, and it less rare for names of persons and other entities to be 'translated' with local versions.
RDA does not generally expect names of persons to be translated. An exception is a name that includes an epithet, such as "Thomas the Rhymer" (although VIAF has no 'translated' version).
A quick Google search does not reveal a translation of "The Big Apple", so I guess that translation of names (of agents, places, etc.) that include epithets is unusual. There is an interesting article on translating geographic names, aptly entitled "Navigating through treacherous waters" (https://translationjournal.net/journal/28names.htm).
RDA expects all designation/appellations to be transliterated.
To answer Martin's questions:
A) In library practice, do you associate a name with a language, and what would be the rules.
GD: Yes. The LRM and RDA provide a property for language of a nomen. The LRM defines this in the context of the scheme to which the nomen belongs; that is, the language covered by the assigning agent. The RDA property does not provide semantics that add to its title "has language of nomen" or specific options for its use, because the 'waters are treacherous'.
Can transliteration to another script change and produce a language-specificity?
GD: I don't think so.
B) If the meaning of the language property we are seeking for is not the language of the name, but the suitable use in a language group of the name for the named instance, then, it is a subproperty of P1 and not P72. Such as "is typically identified in English by...etc. That *is *an ontological question.
GD: I would say that, in the library context, it is 'suitable use in a language group'.
On 10/11/2022 20:09 GMT George Bruseker <george.bruse...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree. This is p72:This property associates an instance(s) of E33 Linguistic Object with an instance of E56 Language in which it is, at least partially, expressed.A mountain is surely made of a molehill here.Can a name be expressed in a language? Yes. Can someone and recognize this and document it? Yes. Does this happen all the time? Yes. Should the standard express it yes. We already agreed this. That is why it is in the rdfs. But in practice this makes it hard for people to apply it. So the proposa to please make it part of the standard so people can exchange information.
On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, 8:45 pm Robert Sanderson, <azarot...@gmail.com> wrote:Hi Martin,No one is proposing anything other than P72. Please stop creating issues where none exist :)
"The Big Apple" is a name for the Place which is also known as "New York City".Does anyone disagree that "The Big Apple" is in English with the precise semantics of P72, or that it is not a Name for that Place?Rob
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 1:31 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:_______________________________________________Dear Gordon,
"The Library of Congress has only recently stopped assigning gender to the referant of a name",
That is interesting!
I'd kindly ask for your expert opinion, about the "language" of a name.
We had introduced the language property of a title because of the frequent cases of words of a natural language and their translations.
Here, my question is:
A) In library practice, do you associate a name with a language, and what would be the rules.
George wrote: "He has a transliterated name: Abū l-Walīd Muḥammad Ibn ʾAḥmad Ibn Rušd . Is that his name in Arabic or English or no language? I don't know. Both? Maybe. I'm not a scholar of philosopher's names and it's not my province to judge. This is not the domain of the ontologist but the specialist in onomastics or the appropriate discipline. "
I absolutely disagree with that. Can transliteration to another script change and produce a language-specificity? That is definitely an ontological question. Otherwise, we have no concept at all for this property.
My example of Joshua had another purpose: The spelling and pronunciation "Josua" is the one used in German, but not exclusively. "Joshua" in English (and?), may be Yeshua in Hebrew written in Latin script? If this is the case, they are variants shaped and used in different language groups. That would justify a language-specificity.
B) If the meaning of the language property we are seeking for is not the language of the name, but the suitable use in a language group of the name for the named instance, then, it is a subproperty of P1 and not P72. Such as "is typically identified in English by...etc. That is an ontological question.
All the best,
Martin
On 11/10/2022 1:21 PM, Gordon Dunsire wrote:AllA librarian expresses an initial opinion:What about gender of a name? E.g. "Gordon" is male; "Gordana" is female. The Library of Congress has only recently stopped assigning gender to the referant of a name, which has resulted in howlers like "Robert Galbraith" (pseudonym of J.K. Rowling) is a male because the name is 'male'.RDA: resource description and access is an implementation of the IFLA Library Reference Model (entity-relationship version). Names and titles are given equal treatment; the only difference between a 'name' and a 'title' is that 'title' is the traditional word for the 'name' of an information resource. Since LRM/RDA has four 'resource entities', we have 'title of work', 'title of _expression_', 'title of manifestation', and 'title of item'; all other entities have 'name": 'name of place', 'name of time-span', 'name of agent', etc.This discussion exposes a further difference, but it is not absolute. A 'title' is usually composed of words, etc. taken from a natural language: "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" uses French words; "The treachery of images" uses English words; "La trahison des images" is back to French; "The wind and the song" is back to English ... On the other hand, a 'name' is usually composed of words, etc. that have no other use in natural language. But there are many counter-examples, and the distinction may not exist in a specific language group (e.g. Chinese?).Although RDA has a property for 'has language of nomen' ('nomen' being the generic term for 'name/title', 'access point', and 'identifier'), the expectation is that it only has utility for 'title', but not 'name'.The sibling property 'has script of nomen' has utility for names and titles. It is important for transliterations.On 09/11/2022 20:02 GMT George Bruseker via Crm-sig <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sigDear Martin,I don't see an ontological problem here. One name can be used by / in many languages. If it is, that can be documented.
The question was not if names can belong to language, or if langauges create names. It was how this is unambiguously defined.It isn't our job as ontologists to unambiguously define the instances of things in the world. This is for the domain specialists.
The example below is what I feared. The fact that the arabic script is mainly used for Arabic, does itr make a transcript of an English name "Arabic?" why not Farsi? I ask here for the Librarians to express their opinion.Who documents the object, documents their knowledge and, hopefully, thereby, the state of affairs in the world.I don't understand the Farsi aspect of the above question. Why would transliterating a name into English from Arabic make it Farsi? Librarians?Here's a person with a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AverroesHis name is ابن رشد in Arabic and also أبو الوليد محمد ابن احمد ابن رشد.With E33_E41 we can say that. Without it, we can't.His name in English is usually Averroes and also he is known as Ibn Rushd.With E33_E41 we can say that. Without it, we cant.He has a transliterated name: Abū l-Walīd Muḥammad Ibn ʾAḥmad Ibn Rušd . Is that his name in Arabic or English or no language? I don't know. Both? Maybe. I'm not a scholar of philosopher's names and it's not my province to judge. This is not the domain of the ontologist but the specialist in onomastics or the appropriate discipline.
Why is Douglas Adams not "German"? I would use it in German exactly in this form.Then put in the KB for this name 'has language English' and 'has language German' and the problem is solved.
But "Adams" I think is a last name exclusive to English, as Dörr to German.
What is the language of "Martin", "Martino", of
Martin: Identical in English, Spanish, French, Dutch, German, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish?If that is what the expert in onomastics thinks, yes. Not an ontological issue. We provide the semantic framework, they do the researching.Martino in Italian, Rumanian?
From Wikipedia: "Joshua".Josua or Jozua is a male given name and a variation of the Hebrew name Yeshua.[1][2] Notable people with this name include:
- Josua Bühler (1895–1983), Swiss philatelist
- Josua de Grave (1643–1712), Dutch draughtsman and painter
- Josua Harrsch (1669–1719), German missionary
- Josua Hoffalt (born 1984), French ballet dancer
- Josua Järvinen (1871–1948), Finnish politician
- Josua Koroibulu (born 1982), Fijian rugby league footballer
- Josua Heschel Kuttner (c. 1803–1878), Jewish Orthodox scholar and rabbi
- Josua Lindahl (1844–1912), Swedish-American geologist and paleontologist
- Josua Maaler (1529–1599), Swiss pastor and lexicographer
- Josua Mateinaniu (fl. 1835), Fijian missionary
- Josua Mejías (born 1997), Venezuelan footballer
- Johann Josua Mosengel (1663–1731), German pipe organ builder
- Jozua Naudé (disambiguation), several people
- Josua Swanepoel (born 1983), South African cricketer
- Josua Tuisova (born 1994), Fijian rugby union player
- Josua Vakurunabili (born 1992), Fijian rugby union player
- Josua Vici (born 1994), Fijian rugby union player
Following scripts, only יְהוֹשֻׁעַ would be Hebrew, but Yeshua English?
This is a question for the knowledge base. The English speaker writing this article thinks that "Josua" applies to these people. It is up to them to instantiate an instance of the class, call it Hebrew and then assign it as a name of those individuals. If someone wants to dispute this, they can use negative properties. I don't know if the above wikipedia article is true or not, but I would like to be able to represent that data in the KB so that I could try to find out.So, not sure why that's a blocker.Best,
GeorgeCheers
Gordon
-- ------------------------------------ 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
--
Rob SandersonDirector for Cultural Heritage MetadataYale University
Cheers
Gordon
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
