[Crm-sig] E21 Person, E67 Birth

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Sep 24 13:25:46 EEST 2019


Dear Thomas,

Your comments well taken, but I was very serious about the prejudice. 
That is not rambling or disrespect, but very deep respect for what we do 
not know, and for what people and cultures have different insights about.

I wanted to make clear that *minimal commitment* *does not *make a claim 
that things we do not describe by the CRM do not exist. It is *not 
*reductionist, it is not positivist.

In order to make machine-encoding standards of respect to culture, the 
standard must take an agnostic position and identify the common 
denominators in these different world views. This is the only way to 
avoid cultural bias and does not describe or delimit my personal 
convictions, beyond the belief that common denominators exist in 
sufficient approximation of an observable reality for our purposes.

This principle seems not to be clear for some participants of this list. 
Immediately a discussion starts off, how to distinguish all the 
different possibilities of reality, rather than what is the minimal 
model for reliable information integration in an evidence based 
discourse. The attempt to exhaust reality in conceptual analysis is 
indeed one of the most prominent Western cultural biases.

Further, we can not make recommendation what historical documents have 
described. We may find "document the intention of producing an 
offspring", but we cannot change practice of the past in such things, 
and present. Even if, it would be only our concern, if there is a 
research scenario in which knowledge from multiple documents could be 
integrated, and so far I would regard anything that happens before birth 
as a highly private thing.

Therefore so far, I do not see a need for typical sub-classes, I would 
rather object.

The "male prejudice accusation" seems to become a haunting ghost;-). The 
CRM so far has, if any, a female prejudice in the properties of Birth.

Would that make sense?

all the best,

Martin

On 9/24/2019 12:01 AM, Thomas Wikman wrote:
>
> Hmm, a bit worried when all y'all start rambling about "prejudice for 
> or against a doctrine or ethical position”, buddhism, the Catholic 
> Church, holy conception and other esoteric things. Maybe the best we 
> can do is to document the intention of producing an offspring 
> (insemination, cloning, bonga-bonga for natural birth etc) and the 
> outcome (birth, abortion, stillborn etc). So a new super-class of 
> birth and and a few typical sub-classes plus typing just to avoid 
> accusations of male CIS prejudices and cultural bias in the CRM.
>
> So what happened and a way of catching how it went "in historical 
> documentation practice”.
>
> best / tw
>
>
>
>>>
>
>> On 23 Sep 2019, at 21:18, Franco Niccolucci 
>> <franco.niccolucci at gmail.com <mailto:franco.niccolucci at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Absolutely agree. As long as we have questions to answer, we are alive.
>>
>> My comments were inspired by a recent discussion of Man-made thing vs 
>> Human-made thing. So we must pay attention not to raise any adverse 
>> reaction in wording, not in substance. Wording may suggest something 
>> beyond our intention.
>>
>> Did like my Latin speech? If so, I can also send emails in Latin :) I 
>> hope this qualifies me as a Latin speaker, a capacity I aspire to be 
>> fully recognized.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Franco
>>
>>
>> Prof. Franco Niccolucci
>> Director, VAST-LAB
>> PIN - U. of Florence
>> Scientific Coordinator
>> ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS
>>
>> Editor-in-Chief
>> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
>>
>> Piazza Ciardi 25
>> 59100 Prato, Italy
>>
>>
>>> Il giorno 23 set 2019, alle ore 20:12, Martin Doerr 
>>> <martin at ics.forth.gr <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>> ha scritto:
>>>
>>> Dear Franco,
>>>
>>> I agree in all points.
>>>
>>> The problem with an ontology as the CRM is of course not to create 
>>> any prejudice for or against a doctrine or ethical position.
>>>
>>> As we agree, the CRM has to do with things that are identified in 
>>> historical documentation practice. The amount of matter present in a 
>>> human body over time and the eternal soul, by rebirth or after 
>>> conception, free will or determined by context etc. allows for many 
>>> definitions of what a person is. Therefore, in the CRM, we take from 
>>> this the minimal commitment, which is not in conflict with any wider 
>>> definitions. This (E21) is between birth and death, as an Actor and 
>>> a material body. It makes no statement whatsoever, if a person in 
>>> social or divine understanding extends to more.
>>>
>>> Concluding, I do not see any conflict with the Catholic position, 
>>> nor a Buddhist one. We state that "end of pregnancy" may not result 
>>> in an E21, regardless what someone regards as a person.
>>>
>>> In other terms, we do not make philosophies about exhaustive 
>>> definitions of categories of reality. We make minimal commitments in 
>>> order to have an agreement about identity of things we refer to by a 
>>> mechanical system, and which we can use for scholarly, 
>>> non-mechanical, non-mathematical exchange of things in relation to 
>>> such identities (or not).
>>>
>>> Would you agree?
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 9/23/2019 5:38 PM, Franco Niccolucci wrote:
>>>> Dear Martin, I agree with you. I tried to suggest a solution with 
>>>> what we have, of course introducing new entities/properties may be 
>>>> even better.
>>>>
>>>> However, when stating that a birth event may not end in a new E21 
>>>> Person we must be very careful. According to the doctrine of 
>>>> Catholic Church, a Person exists since the very first moment of 
>>>> conception, when the first cell comes into existence and starts 
>>>> splitting. Such cell or assembly of cells is assumed, for example, 
>>>> to have a soul since the very beginning of its existence. Maybe 
>>>> also the Orthodox Church has the same belief.
>>>>
>>>> I am just mentioning the above without taking part in favour or 
>>>> against, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Thus end of pregnancy should not be opposed to Birth unless we 
>>>> formulate the scope note of the latter very carefully. I mean that 
>>>> what distinguishes a Birth from an end of pregnancy which is not a 
>>>> Birth should be stated without offending anybody.
>>>>
>>>> On a different but related note, I think that a clear distinction 
>>>> among the different cases of end of pregnancy where the baby is not 
>>>> born alive is unlikely to be documented in historical documents, so 
>>>> a generic category would probably suit better this particular case.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Franco
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Franco Niccolucci
>>>> Director, VAST-LAB
>>>> PIN - U. of Florence
>>>> Scientific Coordinator
>>>> ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS
>>>>
>>>> Editor-in-Chief
>>>> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
>>>>
>>>> Piazza Ciardi 25
>>>> 59100 Prato, Italy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Il giorno 23 set 2019, alle ore 15:51, Martin Doerr 
>>>>> <martin at ics.forth.gr <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>>
>>>>> ha scritto:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Franco, All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, we have typically no coming into existence, or it is 
>>>>> quite undefined. This is a nice case to discuss the border cases 
>>>>> we encounter with all concepts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Typically, the biological process is that of birth or alike. The 
>>>>> stillborn baby may be buried without social identity given. We 
>>>>> could have a type of Birth, with all except the coming into 
>>>>> existence. We could agree that ontologically, there is some coming 
>>>>> into existence, but a birth event does not necessarily end in a 
>>>>> new E21 Person.
>>>>>
>>>>> The methodologically important question is which states of 
>>>>> ignorance do we encounter? Are the typical historical documents, 
>>>>> in which the outcome of a document birth may be unknown as it is 
>>>>> in reality before it happens? Or are the stillborn or miscarriage 
>>>>> clearly distinct, because we normally describe birth as secondary 
>>>>> information about a Person?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume the typical document uncertainty is between abortion, 
>>>>> miscarriage, stillborn or dying at birth, but clearly separated if 
>>>>> the baby lives. As an independent event, it is alternative to 
>>>>> Birth. That would rather suggest a superclass of Birth, ending 
>>>>> pregnancy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/23/2019 12:58 PM, Franco Niccolucci wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As already explained I would better avoid Birth, and even Coming 
>>>>>> into existence.
>>>>>> Birth has two properties P96 by mother and P97 by father, the 
>>>>>> former being of course more important. Using E5 Event does not 
>>>>>> allow this, so you can only use P11 had participant. If I 
>>>>>> remember well there is no P11.1 in the role of, but perhaps this 
>>>>>> may be harmlessly added. If not, a dirty solution is giving a 
>>>>>> Type to the Actor involved like
>>>>>> P11 had participant E39 Actor ‘Mary Doe’ P2 has type “mother”
>>>>>> Maybe colleagues can find a more elegant solution; type in this 
>>>>>> case is a role, not a property of the lady. But in my opinion 
>>>>>> only a *P11.1 in the role of ‘mother’ would work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Franco
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Il giorno lun 23 set 2019 alle 11:34 athinak
>>>>>> <athinak at ics.forth.gr <mailto:athinak at ics.forth.gr>>
>>>>>> ha scritto:
>>>>>> Dear Franco,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your comments are very useful and I think you are right, maybe 
>>>>>> this is
>>>>>> about a more general concept or we may miss something with the
>>>>>> definition of E67 Birth(?). And what about the parents? they are
>>>>>> participants in this biological event? Especially the mother who 
>>>>>> acts,
>>>>>> performs intentionally, especially in cases of stillborn, the 
>>>>>> procedure
>>>>>> is to start labour. I am concerned with the definition of the birth
>>>>>> event.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for the feedback
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Athina
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Στις 2019-09-23 11:45, Franco Niccolucci έγραψε:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My suggestion would be to avoid being involved in ethical and
>>>>>>> religious discussions (when does the ‘person’ start to be such?)
>>>>>>> and go one step up in the entity hierarchy so:
>>>>>>> * instead of E21 Person use E20 Biological Object (superclass of 
>>>>>>> E21)
>>>>>>> qualified with P2 has type
>>>>>>> * instead of E67 Birth use E5 Event qualified with P2 has type. 
>>>>>>> In my
>>>>>>> opinion using instead E63 Beginning of existence (superclass of E67)
>>>>>>> is risky because applying the identity criteria to a fetus is
>>>>>>> uncertain and subject to ethical discussion, so the only safe 
>>>>>>> solution
>>>>>>> is to record when it manifests to the world with a birth or
>>>>>>> miscarriage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Franco
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Il giorno lun 23 set 2019 alle 10:21 athinak
>>>>>>> <athinak at ics.forth.gr <mailto:athinak at ics.forth.gr>>
>>>>>>> ha
>>>>>>> scritto:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am working on a project relating to historical information
>>>>>>>> (sources)
>>>>>>>> on Seafaring lives and Maritime Labour in 19th-20th century - 
>>>>>>>> we map
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> raw data to CIDOC CRM (or an extension of it). Historians collect
>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>> from various records, such as Civil Registers, which are records
>>>>>>>> documenting persons born or dead - basically, they register the
>>>>>>>> deaths.
>>>>>>>> So I have this case: they register as  persons the miscarriages or
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> stillborn or the abortions, and they assign attributes such as the
>>>>>>>> number of registration,  personal information 
>>>>>>>> (name,surname,etc. )of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> parents, the place of residence (which is the parents address, of
>>>>>>>> course) and the sex of the aborted or still born (something they
>>>>>>>> knew
>>>>>>>> afterwards). I suppose this is a difficult ethical and biological
>>>>>>>> subject- my question is how would you model the miscarriage or the
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> born or the abortion? It is not exactly defined as E21 Person 
>>>>>>>> and if
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> is a case of still born, it can be a kind of a E67 Birth Event, but
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> it is a miscarriage, I believe it is not a birth event, it is a
>>>>>>>> different biological process, so what is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any thoughts that would help?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Athina Kritsotaki
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto: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 <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>>>>> http://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 <mailto: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
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ------------------------------------
>>> 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 <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>
>>>
>>> Web-site:
>>> http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto: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


-- 
------------------------------------
  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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20190924/fbad9ce9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list