[Crm-sig] E21 Person, E67 Birth

Thomas Wikman thomas at wikman.org
Tue Sep 24 17:30:17 EEST 2019


Dear Martin,

Yes, maybe my blurb came out a bit as often before and confusing outside of me. No offence intended. So avoiding lessons learned let's try again.

From the initial question it seems obvious “Birth” is too narrow as concept that wider one is need higher up to model result. Since things have gotten pretty complicated it needs to cover quite a lot (new reality). Out of the hat things like

Intention 
From 100% want to 100% never ever.

Process
* The old way
   — true father? (cmp truth in church books vs dna-genealogy etc)
   — a lot of cases...
* IVF
  — inside a relation
  — with donor
  — for a surrogate 
*  and the latest, IVF and CRISPR
* cloning soon
* you name it

Result
* offspring, ok, not ok
* abortion
  — intentional
  — for medical reasons
  — etc
* Miscarriage

Consequence
From personal happiness or despair to global accidents as having to start a new religion, beheading 3 wives and hunting down heretics for quite some time.

I agree with your reasoning (sometimes with ease and sometimes with some hammering ) and that this is not how things have been documented. My point is more that it should and the fact it hasn’t could have a lot to do with it not being part of past reality or possible to do in available systems. So wait for it or make it happen and adapt to new realities?

“Conception” etc seems to narrow and i’m not sure even if definable with above in mind so “intention” sounded fluffy enough and was the best starting point i could come up with. I’m sure there are better options.

For the rest of the family stuff, it has been discussed many times over the years with some weirdos even asking for harmonisation with Gedcom etc So that’s nothing new.

When i look out from my window i see our gender-certified, rainbow kindergarten 50 m away and the kids look at me disapprovingly when i say something “wrong”. And that in my small village (500 people). Museology now sounds confusingly genderologic. Maybe just something up here in the north but for good or bad, addressing it properly sooner than later with modeling would be great in order to avoid question about prejudice popping out. 

I said to avoid...

best / tw

> On 24 Sep 2019, at 12:25, Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> 
> 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/20190924/79d63bf4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list