[Crm-sig] P72 has Language

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Mon Oct 14 19:33:50 EEST 2019

Dear George,

The first principle of all is are there relevant queries that need that 
property for integrating disparate sources, which indeed provide such 
data, and is that research one we like to support with the CRM?

Second, using p2 on E21 does the job, doesn't it? What is the added 
value of "knows language"?

Next principle, keep the ontology small. Querying 1000 properties is 
already more than anybody can keep in mind. Each additional property has 
an implementation cost. We need strong arguments for relevance.

It has been the mos t important success factor of the CRM to keep the 
ontology small and still expressive enough. If we loose this discipline, 
we will loose the whole project.

Finally, we are not repeating in the CRM the way typically information 
systems document, but always tried to find a more fundamental 
representation. With that argument, we could never have introduced 
events. They did NOT appear in any of the typical systems at that 
time.**It is a principle *not *to model all the valuable description 
elements, which are relevant to characterize an item, but not creating 
interesting links across resources.

I did not say that it is a personal opinion that someone speaks a 
language. I said, this is observable. I document: Franco has spoken 
Latin, repeatedly? But talking about skills, is another level, it 
introduces a quality, which is hard to objectify, as Franco has pointed 
out. Actually, it is a typical classification problem, with all its 
boundary case questions, and the CRM is about relations between particulars.

So, what is the*added value* against p2, and what are the typical 
research data and typical research questions for *integrating* such 
data, that cannot be answered with P2?



On 10/14/2019 4:24 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
> Dear Martin,
> Which is CEO’s proposition that you support? It gets lost in the 
> string. Do you mean that a) a person speaking a language means being 
> part of a group, or b) using the p2 on E21 and then make types for 
> ’Speakers of...'
> I am (still and very much ) a supporter of a new property ‘knows 
> language'. I do not think that the group solution works because of the 
> identify criteria of groups. I also don’t think the event solution is 
> necessary (another suggestion that has floated in this conversation). 
> It is often the case that for person we do not know events of their 
> acquisition or use of language or a skill but we do have proposition 
> that they had that language or skill! I also don’ t support the 
> ‘English Speakers’ type solution since it provides a different URI 
> than the URI for ‘English’ and forces more, obscure, modelling.
> Another CIDOC CRM principle is model at the level of knowledge that is 
> typically present in information systems. Again, I think the present 
> case (people know languages) is identical to the case of
> E22 consists of E57 Material
> This is a typical piece of knowledge held about an object. It would be 
> obtuse to insist that one should create an event node to indicate the 
> manner of this material becoming the constituting material of the 
> object when we don’t know this fact. This is why CRM represents such 
> binary relations, because they are real, they are a level of knowledge 
> and they are observable.
> If someone has entered into an information system George: English, Pot 
> Making, it is unlikely that what they want to reconstruct are 
> instances of me using English or performing Pot making. Rather they 
> are interested that there is an individual which has a particular 
> formation which means that he knows language x, knows skill x. This 
> information is probably used in an actual integration to connect an 
> instance of E21 via an instance of E57 Language to for example E33 
> that use the same E57.
> It would seem we need some sort of hierarchy in the principles which 
> can also be conflicting.
>> My approach is not documenting skills*.* My approach is documenting 
>> facts, rather than potentials. I take notice and may document that 
>> you spoke Latin, as I have done last time at school. I have a 
>> document stating my grade in Latin at high school.  My grade at high 
>> school confirms a set of years of continued successful lessons, not 
>> that I could understand much Latin now;-).
>> Speaking a language can be documented as an extended (observed) 
>> activity, as in FRBRoo.
> It may be, but is it typically? I have never seen an information 
> system, especially in museum context that would.
>> For instance, someone writing books in particular language. This 
>> falls under any kind of extended activity not further specified, such 
>> as an artist using a technique for some time, and avoids transforming 
>> actual activities into potentials.
>> We can document someone's documented opinion about a potential of a 
>> person, as an information object.
> That would make this information mostly unusable however. If our goal 
> is to functionally use the observation person x speaks language y, 
> then it needs to be semantically represented and not made a string.
>> In the "Principles for Modelling Ontologies" we refer:
>> "7.2 Avoid concepts depending on a personal/ spectator perspective"
>> This could be elaborated more. In the CRM, we do not model concepts 
>> "because people use them", but because they can be used to integrated 
>> information related to them with URIs. Therefore, your arguments and 
>> what I wanted to say is, "skill" is a bad concept for integration. 
>> What should be instantiated are the observable activities, which may 
>> or may not indicate skills.
> I don’t see that this principle applies. It is not a personal 
> perspective that someone speaks a language, anymore than it is a 
> personal perspective that an object is constituted of a material. This 
> fact can be documented and observed. Someone else can come and do the 
> same. Don’t believe Franco can speak Latin? Watch him and see if he 
> can. When someone writes in an information system, they probably 
> typically mean, some evidence leads me to assert Person y knows 
> language y. They do not mean to say at some point in the past he 
> learned it, or at some point he performed it.
> In the case of documenting that someone knows a language this can be 
> used practically to integrate using URIs just in case we use the same 
> URI for English that we use to describe a document and that we use to 
> describe the knowledge of the individual
> E21 knows language E57 Language URI:AA
> E33 has language E57 Language URI:AA
> answers the query, who in this graph knew the language this document 
> was written in.
> Functionally, the issue for me  is, is there a good reason against 
> adding a binary property off of person which can indicate their 
> knowledge ability and connect to a well known URI for a language.
> Best,
> George
  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
  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
  Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20191014/a0ac7943/attachment.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list