[Crm-sig] P72 has Language

Detlev Balzer db at balilabs.de
Mon Oct 14 23:39:24 EEST 2019


Dear George, Martin,

this discussion made me curious whether or not I can confirm George's assertion that such statements are common in the cultural heritage field.

EAC-CPF does have a language element, which is, however, only used to indicate in which language the name of a person or corporation is expressed. 

GND, the authority file for libraries in German-speaking countries, has a Language entity which is used for making statements about the "field of study" of a person. Other predicates for the person-language pair of entities do occur, but these are obvious data entry errors.

Having extracted person-related data from a dozen or more cultural heritage projects, I don't remember any example where languages spoken or known by somebody have been considered in any other sense than relating to the documented activity, rather than to the (possibly un-instantiated) capacity of the person.

Of course, this is just an observation that doesn't prove anything. Personally, I would tend towards Martin's view that there is little, if anything, to be gained by defining such kind of statement in a reference model such as the CIDOC CRM.

Best wishes,
Detlev

> George Bruseker <george.bruseker at gmail.com> hat am 14. Oktober 2019 um 19:45 geschrieben:
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list