[Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"
SledgeJ at si.edu
Fri Apr 12 19:00:03 EEST 2019
I agree with Robert and Athanasios. Surely the gender of the maker is recorded elsewhere in the CRM and that it does not need to be insinuated as part of E22, E25, and E71? If a distinction is needed between human made and animal made—(a bird’s nest for example), is this now recorded elsewhere in the CRM?
Associate Director for Collections and Operations, National Museum of the American Indian
From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> On Behalf Of Esther Chen
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 9:36 AM
To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr; Athanasios Velios <a.velios at arts.ac.uk>; Pierre Choffé <choffepierre at gmail.com>; Florian Kräutli <fkraeutli at mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"
I absolutely agree with Florian.
Florian Kräutli <fkraeutli at mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de> hat am 12. April 2019 um 12:35 geschrieben:
Dear Pierre and all,
I strongly disagree. This is not about the origins of the word but of its usage and meaning in present day. The CRM should reflect (changing) knowledge contexts and we as a community should react to and respect developments in the world, and not decide based on our personal opinions about them.
I think this should be put up as an issue and I would vote in favour of either suggestion: dropping ‘man’ or replacing it with ‘human’.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:13 PM +0200, "Pierre Choffé" <choffepierre at gmail.com<mailto:choffepierre at gmail.com>> wrote:
[Image removed by sender.]
This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our times and most people (including me) generally avoid getting involved in such discussions - especially on social media where you would immediately get drowned in a flood of insults - and the result is that we have a feeling of consensus on the matter.
Now, we as a community might have a different point of view, starting with the knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man" (please consult the wikipedia page<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMan_(word)&data=02%7C01%7CSledgej%40si.edu%7C8c3bb8ecc3504936360e08d6bf4cfa22%7C989b5e2a14e44efe93b78cdd5fc5d11c%7C1%7C1%7C636906734691400258&sdata=COpcwmPnWfWF%2BXq5GgAkeBMutzatyYDFHoTD7UWPF2Y%3D&reserved=0> for a brief introduction). Can we please avoid this kind of discussions and leave it to Twitter and Facebook ?
Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feeling excluded here ?)
Have a nice day,
On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 11:2 AM, Athanasios Velios <a.velios at arts.ac.uk> wrote:
I support the change of the English labels to:
E22 Made Object
E25 Made Feature
E71 Made Thing
And I think this can be proposed as an issue to be voted through the SIG
All the best,
On 12/04/2019 05:38, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear all,
> On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose that the
> labels for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and E71 Man-Made
> Thing be changed to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“. In this day
> and age, I think we should recognize that inclusion and diversity are
> core features of community acceptance, and that including gender-biased
> language is alienating.
> Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made Object, E25
> changed to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing.
> The “human” nature of the agent that does the making is explicit in the
> ontology, in that only humans or groups there-of can be Actors and carry
> out Productions or Creations, so there is no ambiguity about non-humans
> making these.
> This issue was discussed at length, and has been open in our profile’s
> tracker for 12 months now. We would greatly prefer that it be solved by
> changing the labels in the documentation, and thereby in the RDFS,
> rather than other RDF specific approaches such as minting new terms and
> using owl:sameAs to assert equality, or rebranding only in the JSON-LD
> serialization but persisting in other serializations. The change is
> consistent, reduces the length of the class names, and is an easy
> substitution. The comprehensibility of the label is still the same.
> Given the renaming of Collection to Curated Holding, migration of
> existing data has the same solution - just substitute the labels.
> As a second choice, if the above is not acceptable, we propose to
> instead replace “Man-“ with “Human-“ … only two additional characters,
> but a bit more of a mouthful.
> Many thanks for your engagement with this issue!
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and/or its attachments you must not take any action based upon them and you must not copy or show them to anyone. Please send the email back to us and immediately and permanently delete it and its attachments. Where this email is unrelated to the business of University of the Arts London or of any of its group companies the opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the sender and do not necessarily constitute those of University of the Arts London (or the relevant group company). Where the sender's signature indicates that the email is sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses Limited the following also applies: UAL Short Courses Limited is a company registered in England and Wales under company number 02361261. Registered Office: University of the Arts London, 272 High Holborn, London WC1V 7EY
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr<mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Head of the Library
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science
+49 30 22667 190
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 823 bytes
More information about the Crm-sig