[Crm-sig] P72 has Language

George Bruseker george.bruseker at gmail.com
Mon Oct 14 20:45:17 EEST 2019


Dear Martin,

The conversation began with a use case from an archive. I just inform that
this is also found in all the projects I work on for memory institutions.
They find it in scope, so looking further afield for what anthropologists
do doesn't seem like a necessary step? Though highly fascinating!

Best

George



On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 6:58 PM Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr> wrote:

> Dear George, All,
>
> As a second thought:
>
> I think documentation formats such as LIDO are an adequate place to add
> such useful properties to characterize items in a more detailed way, we
> would not put in the CRM analytically. Shapes, colors etc. being typical
> examples.
>
> Question: Are there formats from the archival world that use to describe
> the languages people speak? EAD CFP?
> Libraries are interested in the languages someone publishes in, not
> speaking.
>
> What are the anthropologists registering? Would they be interested in
> languages learned at school, or rather in the language used for
> communication in a typical group? Would they document people being
> incapable of communicating in that group?
> Or just infer language via group?
>
> How to distinguish native speakers from non-native?
>
> Would historians make cases of people that could not communicate in a
> given language, with societal effects?
>
> What about illiterate people? Speaking, not writing...? Maintaining oral
> history with great precision, etc.
>
> What about creoles ?
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 10/14/2019 7:33 PM, Martin Doerr wrote:
>
>
> 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?
>
> Best,
>
> martin
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>  Vox:+30(2810)391625
>  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
>  Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing listCrm-sig at ics.forth.grhttp://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: martin at ics.forth.gr
>  Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20191014/bb06f234/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list