[Crm-sig] Foundational perspectives of CRMbase and CRMsoc (was : Re: Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?)
francesco.beretta at cnrs.fr
Sun Jan 16 19:48:04 EET 2022
thank you for the hint and reminder.
I would then kindly ask the issues-managers to add this email to issue
504 concerning : "Formulate the philosophical underpinnings of CRM and
its relation to reality and the objectivity of observations. "
-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet : Re: [Crm-sig] Foundational perspectives of CRMbase and CRMsoc
(was : Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas?
Date : Mon, 10 Jan 2022 17:04:45 +0200
De : Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr>
Pour : Francesco Beretta <francesco.beretta at cnrs.fr>, crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Please see issue 504.
Le 09.01.22 à 15:33, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig a écrit :
> Dear Martin,
> thank you for taking of your time to discuss my statement below about
> the foundational perspectives of the CRM. Allow me please, in turn, to
> restate, with all due respect, the distinctions that we should
> introduce if we want to remove any misunderstanding. It would indeed
> be a pity to "confuse everything".
> I must confess that it is almost impossible not to think that the
> level of factuality modelled by CRMbase is the one of the happenings
> in the physical world, and this from the point of view of the
> spatio-temporal relations of classical (Galilean or Newtonian) physics.
> Of course the domain of discourse of the CRM is the one of cultural
> heritage and history but considered from the perspective of space-time
> relations of entities, i.e. of events happening in time and the
> physical space, as the foundational stance.
> As a matter of fact all events in CRMbase are subclasses of crm:E4
> Period : "This class comprises sets of coherent phenomena or cultural
> manifestations occurring in time and space."
> And, as we all know, it is precisely the crm:E4 Period class that
> introduces the two properties establishing a relationship of events to
> space (crm:P8 took place on or within → crm:E18 Physical Thing ;
> crm:P7 took place at → crm:E53 Place) .
> Furthermore, crm:E4 Period is at the same time a subclass of E2
> Temporal Entity, the class providing the time-span projection and the
> temporal relationships, _*and* of_ E92 Spacetime Volume, last being
> defined as comprising "4-dimensional point sets (volumes) in physical
> spacetime (in contrast to mathematical models of it, or the models of
> quantum mechanics) regardless their true geometric forms. They may
> derive their identity from being the extent of a material phenomenon
> or from being the interpretation of an expression defining an extent
> in spacetime." Space-time (physical, not mathematical) is thus central
> in the foundational view of the CRM.
> In addition, crm:E52 Time-Span is defined as "abstract temporal
> extent, in the sense of Galilean physics" and crm:E53 Place as an
> "extent in space, in particular on the surface of the earth, in the
> pure sense of physics: independent from temporal phenomena and
> matter". Both are conceived as projections of physical phenomena into
> reference systems.
> Finally, we can read in literature that the choice of not having
> phases or states, in the CRM, but just events "was inspired by
> considerations of modern physics, which considers Events as complex
> interactions with non-negligible temporal extent, leading into phases
> of stability with fuzzy (if any) temporal boundaries." This explains
> why "The CRM encourages the description of transitions rather than the
> states or situations in between them". Doerr Martin, Hunter Jane and
> Lagoze Carl, Towards a Core Ontology for Information Integration.
> /Journal of Digital Information/ 4 (1), 2003, 5.1 About Situations and
> Events (http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/92).
> With all this said (respectively before our eyes), it would be almost
> impossible, for an informed observer, not to think that classical
> physics provides the foundational perpective, or the fundamental
> insight that establishes the essential ontological categories of the
> CRM events and its analsys of the domain of discourse of "the
> scholarly views of museum curators and a set of other disciplines
> dealing with historical facts of the past". And that these facts are
> considered under the perspective of their spatio-temporal extent and
> I do not criticise this choice at all or discuss it at all as it can
> be considered as entirely appropriate in order to establish a ground
> ontology aimed at integrating factual information about cultural
> heritage physical objects.
> Concerning conceptual objects, even the crm:E65 Creation class,
> producing instances of the crm:E28 Conceptual Object class, is to be
> considered in this view —insofar as it is a subclass of crm:E4 Period—
> as an event happening in space and time, as the substratum of the
> intellectual event happening in the mind of the artist or poet. The
> same applies to social events, such as the crm:E66 Formation of a
> group or crm:E8 Acquisition of a physical thing: it this their
> projection in physical reality that is considered, in application of
> the applied foundational view, not their social dimension and the
> analysis of what happens in the minds of the participants.
> Thus, the point I was making, and that started our exchanges, is that
> if we want to model social events or phenomena *as such*, like
> acquisitions and ownership, joining groups and memberships, shared
> opinions in social networks and radicalisations, etc., i.e. as
> phenomena in human minds, individually or collectively, we need an
> extension of CRM applying a different and complementary foundational
> As a matter of fact, social philosophy, social psychology and social
> sciences generally consider —as a standard view— that this kind of
> social phenomena happen in the minds and the social space as a
> collective space of the activities of individual human minds and as a
> result of individual, shared and/or collective intentionality (cf.
> e.g. Gallotti Mattia and Michael John (éds.), /Perspectives on Social
> Ontology and Social Cognition/, Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands, 2014
> or Sammut Gordon et al. (éds.), /The Cambridge Handbook of Social
> Representations/, Cambridge, University Press, 2015).
> In the CRMsoc extensions that George and myself are developing, and
> already proposed and will propose to discussion to the next SIG, we
> therefore propose to adopt the foundational perspecive of a
> phenomenology of social phenomena compatible with standard approaches
> both in social philosophy and in social sciences as an effort to
> carefully distinguish the physical and the social space and to add a
> well grounded layer of social events and states ontop of the events in
> the physical world that is consistent with CRMbase and its focus.
> Therefore, in my perspective, "the speech act/social event is *not*
> identical to the crm:E8 Acquisition" (see below), the latter being the
> projection or setting in the physical world of the former which
> happens in the minds of the participants and the social space – and is
> not seen by our dogs. According to the distinction of foundational
> approaches, and the epistemological layering, the same human happening
> can be split into distinct physical and social events (in an
> appropriate extension) and this allows to capture the complexity of
> the happening, from different perspectives, as shown in the examples
> brought into the discussion by Rob and George : an archeological
> expedition (as social and physical endeavour) ended with 'came home
> empty handed' (or no death after a murder attempt): this is a
> specifically individual and social failure in relation to a
> personal/social project or plan, or an expectation by the funding
> agency, but not a physical event.
> I consider that we should have an open discussion on ways of modelling
> social phenomena, and try to find a common vision in the SIG, in order
> to produce extensions of the CRM grounded in scientific standards that
> are not the same in different domains of discourse, and disciplines.
> And, indeed, it will be a pleasure for me to resume in the next future
> our exchanges, as in the past, in preparation for the next SIG.
> I also kindly ask to have this post as a new issue on foundational
> perspectives and stances in CRM base and extentions.
> All the best
> Le 07.01.22 à 20:33, Martin Doerr a écrit :
>> Dear Francesco,
>> Please let us not confuse everything. The CRM is in no ways grounded
>> in physics. It is grounded in the scholarly views of museum curators
>> and a set of other disciplines dealing with historical facts of the
>> past in careful collaborations over 25 years. Please study the
>> history of the CRM, beginning from the Smithsonian in Washington. The
>> CRM is compatible with GIS systems, physics, biology and
>> othersciences, but does not describe their theories, but exclusively
>> particular facts of the past. It includes social constructs already,
>> and no no ways excludes social disciplines.
>> The only real bias of the CRM is purely technological and inevitable:
>> Information integration via machines based on binary logic, as a
>> means to link context-free identifiable individuals from human
>> provided data, which form a small but important subset of historical
>> data, which the a collaborative empirical result of the work of the
>> CRM-SIG. This determines the modelling principles of the CRM.
>> If you introduce other functions or principles of modeling, we have
>> first to understand their new epistemic function in the scientific
>> discourse, and understand if and how binary logic based machines etc,
>> may be able to process them epistemically correctly for the intended
>> purpose. If you introduce other functions or principles of modeling,
>> the model will necessarily be different from the CRM itself and
>> possibly incompatible.
>> This *cannot* be discussed vi a e-mail exchange, it is too complex.
>> Any such attempt would increase the already existing confusion of
>> epistemic and technological insights and necessities. We have to
>> organize vitual face-to-face meetings for that purpose.
>> My previous messages where *solely* about the word "outcome" and its
>> polysemy. I perfectly understand the word. I only tried to make the
>> CRM audience aware of the ontological methodologic questions
>> necessary to reveal the polysemy of this word and enable choosing the
>> senses that can be modelled adequately. I also tried, without
>> success, to make you aware of the extreme context dependency of any
>> such word. If this has been misunderstood, we need to discuss this
>> *face-to-face *with enough time. The necessary explanations and
>> disambiguations definitely exceed my writing capacities.
>> Looking forward to a substantial face-to-face discussion and
>> resolution of any misunderstanding,
>> Best wishes,
>> On 1/6/2022 9:03 PM, Francesco Beretta wrote:
>>> Dear Martin, and (indirectly) Rob and George,
>>> Thank you for your comments.
>>> Le 06.01.22 à 18:13, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :
>>>> Dear Francesco,
>>>> Your arguments well taken, I repeat:
>>>> The *speech act in CRM is identical to the sale, (Acquisition),* if
>>>> at all the speech act has a legal character, and if at all the sale
>>>> is executed via speech act, and not via e-commerce or whatsoever.
>>> The point is: why care at all about building CRMsoc if everything is
>>> already present in CRMbase? And, furthermore, are we sure that we
>>> have a well grounded foundational analysis of social facts in
>>> CRMbase? Especially as we know that it's grounded in the epistemic
>>> view of classical physic (I mean not quantic)? Isn't this a somehow
>>> different domain of discourse from social life as such? And
>>> shouldn't we take car not to model a domain without taking into
>>> account the paradigms of the disciplines studying the domain under
>>> consideration, i.e. social life?
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig