[Crm-sig] CALL FOR E-VOTE ISSUE 581

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Mar 1 14:44:54 EET 2022


Dear Francesco,

May I object. I maintain that ownership is not observable. All examples 
you provided are about memories or documents of acquisition, or about 
those who claim to know those (who know/have known those) who know. The 
events of acquisition, in whatever form, are the only one that are 
observable. This does not require a higher conceptual consideration in 
the first place. Without counterexample, I cannot follow your criticism.

All the best,

Martin

On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
>
> Dear Athina,
>
> Thank you for taking of your time and for making explicit the reasons 
> of your modelling choices and methodology.
>
> As University trained historians, we know that the model of the 
> information produced by a project generally depends on the research 
> agenda and the available sources. The model of a project is therefore 
> not an ontology in the sense of a conceptualisation allowing for 
> multi-project interoperability. Even the way of modelling a ship's 
> voyage may change according to the lines of inquiry of different 
> research projects. For this reason, a strict bottom-up modelling 
> methodology in the field of historical research, and more broadly in 
> the social sciences, without foundational analysis, doesn't seem to be 
> the most appropriate way of producing an ontology for the whole 
> portion of reality —a quite relevant portion in the cultural heritage 
> perspective— these disciplines are concerned with.
>
> Regarding the ownership of a ship 
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-owner), which in French is in some 
> contexts referred to under the technical term 'armement' 
> (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armement_(marine) — cf. "registration 
> activity" below), thesocial fact of ownership is as such and in 
> general —in the sense of ontology— observable. One can ask sailors or 
> informed contemporaries and they will know who the owner of the ship 
> is. There are historical sources, for example correspondence, which 
> attest to the role of shipowners (/armateurs/) of such and such a 
> person or company, even if we have lost the shipping registers which 
> state the events of taking ownership.
>
> In the Sealit project, a methodological choice or stance was adopted 
> which is certainly legitimate in the project's context, but which one 
> should avoid to generalize stating e.g. that ship ownership is not 
> directly observable, as this would be in contradiction with observable 
> reality. Besides the collective, attested and observable knowledge of 
> ownership, there are, for other subdomains, written statements about 
> it. One has to think of the land registry documents 
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadastre) which often attest to the 
> social fact of land ownership, or other rights on land, without 
> necessarily knowing where it comes from. These rights are observable 
> and part of reality as evidenced by the recent trials and convictions 
> of climate activists who have occupied and organised unauthorised 
> events at the headquarters of private companies, on the basis of 
> infringement of private property.
>
> So should one intend that social bonds, ownership, etc. are —in 
> general and as such— not observable does not seem to be very prudent 
> because the fact of generalising a specific method of modelling whose 
> foundation and epistemological principles have never really been made 
> explicit (in their foundational, philosophical aspects) risks 
> compromising the possibility of adopting such an ontology by entire 
> scientific communities, such as the social sciences, historical 
> sciences, etc., whose objects are precisely related the social facts 
> and immaterial cultural heritage.
>
> I am therefore not at all criticizing  the modelling choices of the 
> Sealit project, which are entirely legitimate in the context of the 
> project's model. I would simply caution against implicitly accepting 
> foundational and philosophical modelling principles, such as those we 
> are called to vote on —e.g. the reference to "empirical material 
> evidence" in the context of an ontology (the CRM) that "only commits 
> to a unique _material_ reality independent from the observer"— 
> regarding issues that appear to be merely about innocuous wording, and 
> by far are not, and should actually be once explicitly formulated, 
> discussed and accepted.
>
> It is in this sense that I understand this question, as well as the 
> one raised in issue 581, to fall under issues 504 and 580.
>
> Hoping to have answered your question in this way, with my best regards
>
> Francesco
>
>
> ----
>
> Dr. habil. Francesco Beretta
>
> Chargé de recherche au CNRS,
> Chargé d'enseignement à l'Université de Neuchâtel
>
> Axe de recherche en histoire numérique,
> Laboratoire de recherche historique Rhône-Alpes
>
> LARHRA UMR CNRS 5190,
> MSH LSE,
> 14, Avenue Berthelot
> 69363 LYON CEDEX 07
>
>
> Publications 
> <https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/search/index/?qa[auth_t][]=Francesco+Beretta&sort=producedDate_tdate+desc>
> Le projet dataforhistory.org <http://dataforhistory.org/> – Ontology 
> Management Environment OntoME <http://ontome.dataforhistory.org/>
> Projet "FAIR data" en histoire 
> <http://phn-wiki.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/doku.php?id=fairdata:accueil>
>
> L’Axe de recherche en histoire numérique 
> <http://larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/pole-histoire-numerique> du LARHRA
> Le projet symogih.org <http://symogih.org/>– SPARQL endpoint 
> <http://symogih.org/?q=rdf-publication>
> Portail de ressources géo-historiques GEO-LARHRA 
> <http://geo-larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/>
> Portail de ressources textuelles 
> <http://xml-portal.symogih.org/index.html> au format XML
> Cours Outils numériques pour les sciences historiques 
> <http://phn-wiki.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/doku.php?id=intro_histoire_numerique:accueil>
> Dépôt GitHub avec documentation des cours et travaux d’étudiant-e-s 
> <https://github.com/Sciences-historiques-numeriques>
>
>
>
>
> Le 28.02.22 à 11:25, athinak a écrit :
>> Dear Francesco, dear all,
>>
>> There may be a misunderstanding regarding the class Legal Object 
>> Relationship, which I explained in the presentation in the last sig 
>> meeting: We defined this class in a sense of a state of ownership of 
>> a ship, which is a kind of information that can be inferred (implicit 
>> knowledge) and not directly observed – it can be observed by the 
>> starting and terminating event of this state. It is like the soc 
>> Bond, which describes social/legal relationships that cannot be 
>> observed.
>> We strictly follow the modelling principle which refers that we model 
>> from actual information sources that  reveal actual practice- 
>> according to the historians of the sealit project, a ship ownership 
>> phase is described as a state with the only information documented to 
>> be about the ship owner, the shares that may have and the name of the 
>> ship, not the dates of this ownership (which is a quite complex 
>> phenomenon to observe since a person e.g may possess up to 1/48 of a 
>> ship, so you can understand how many ships shares a single person 
>> could have in the same time and there is no documented information on 
>> the timespan of this shareholding. Additionally, the ownership is 
>> used to assign a name to a ship and a ship changes its name under an 
>> ownership state. However, additional temporal information on these 
>> names under ownership states is not documented in the source – the 
>> Ownership phase can be traced by the ship registration activity (that 
>> includes timespan information) that initiates it and by the 
>> de-flagging, both events that are documented. This is material 
>> evidence, coming from the source.  If you open a Loyd catalogue, you 
>> will find these information under ship registration without dates on 
>> the owners of the ship.
>> Another modeling principle that is represented in our decision to 
>> leave Legal Object Relationship as a subclass of E1 CRM Entity is 
>> that we support the progressive improvement of classification 
>> knowledge by IsA hierarchy. Since we don’t have enough knowledge and 
>> we support the open world assumption, which means that new evidence 
>> may change the classification, we prefer to model the more general 
>> (here we classified under E1) and then, when we have more precise 
>> knowledge by instances on the nature of this Legal Ob.Relationship 
>> class, then we can progressively specialize and refine the E1 and 
>> find the superclass under which Legal Object Relationship fits.
>> Sealit is a model that is based on data input, it can be refined and 
>> improved based on new knowledge, new instances.
>> I just wanted to explain this logic under which the model was 
>> constructed and to prove that it is one of the most representative 
>> documentations from material evidence we had, in our experience. So I 
>> am a bit confused how this use case supports raising philosophical 
>> questions regarding issue 581.
>>
>> My BRs,
>> Athina
>>
>>
>> On 2022-02-25 12:29, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
>>> Dear Martin, dear Franco,
>>>
>>> I assume that the same question by Franco (Issue 581) is raised by
>>> page 25 ?
>>>
>>> " What goes on in our minds or is produced by our minds is also
>>> regarded as part of the material reality, as it becomes materially
>>> evident to other people at least by our utterances, behavior and
>>> products. "
>>>
>>> " priority of integrating information based on material evidence
>>> available for whatever human experience."
>>>
>>> " The CIDOC CRM only commits to a unique material reality independent
>>> from the observer."
>>>
>>> Cf. the new proposition below:
>>>
>>> " As “available documented and empirical material evidence” are
>>> regarded all types of material collected and displayed by museums and
>>> related institutions, as defined by ICOM[1], and other collections of
>>> things providing evidence about the past, in-situ objects, sites,
>>> monuments and intangible heritage relating to fields such as social
>>> history, ethnography, archaeology, fine and applied arts, natural
>>> history, history of sciences and technology. "
>>>
>>> It seems to me that these 'fussy' questions raise in fact, once again,
>>> the relevant Issue 504 concerning the philosophical underpinnings of
>>> CRM.
>>>
>>> The consequences of this approach are illustrated by the recently
>>> published Sealit project ontology, class: Legal Object Relationship
>>> (e.g. property of a ship by some actor): "This class comprises legal
>>> object relationships of which the timespan and the state (of these
>>> relationships) cannot be observed or documented. We can only observe
>>> these relationships through the events that initialize or terminate
>>> this state of relationship (starting event and terminating event). "
>>>
>>> I'm not sure how many domain experts would agree with this definition
>>> because ownership of things, as a fact, is attested in written texts,
>>> or even in minds of living persons and expressed in utterances, and
>>> these are empirically observable.
>>>
>>> The here adopted foundational stance excludes this fact (i.e.
>>> property) from being a subclass of E2 Temporal Entity.  Legal Object
>>> Relationship is declared as subclass of E1 Entity.
>>>
>>> But on page 33 of the CRM documentation we can read: "The more
>>> specific subclasses of E2 Temporal Entity enable the documentation of
>>> events pertaining to individually related/affected material, social or
>>> mental objects that have been described using subclasses of E77
>>> Persistent Item. "
>>>
>>> I must therefore admit that a careful reader is somewhat confused and
>>> that having an extension, such as CRMsoc, providing additional classes
>>> to deal with individual intentional and social life, and dealing with
>>> mental and social facts as empirically observable, intentional
>>> (collective) facts as we propose, could only be an advantage.
>>>
>>> This email therefore relates to issues 504 and 580. I'd kindly ask to
>>> put it there and add there links to the relevant other issues.
>>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Francesco
>>>
>>> On 14.02.22 20:38, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear All
>>>>
>>>> Please vote "YES" for accept, "NO" for not accept:
>>>>
>>>> Background
>>>>
>>>> Proposal by Franco Niccolucci (9 January 2022)
>>>> With other colleagues, I am translating into Italian the CIDOC CRM
>>>> documentation. This forced me to (or if you prefer, it gave me the
>>>> opportunity of) reading it with great attention to minute details.
>>>> On page 10 of the Introduction I found a couple of things that may
>>>> need to be changed: both are in the bottom of the page describing
>>>> the CRM Intended Scope, where some expressions used in such
>>>> description are explained in greater detail.
>>>> 1. In the first bullet point, the term “scientific and scholarly
>>>> documentation” is explained as compliant to the quality level
>>>> “expected and required by museum professionals and researchers in
>>>> the field.” What about archaeologists,  architectural historians
>>>> etc.? I would replace this statement with “expected and required
>>>> by heritage professionals and researchers in the field.”, which
>>>> would also expand the “field” beyond museology as implied by the
>>>> other formulation, which is also contradictory with the much wider
>>>> ambit listed in the second bullet.
>>>> 2. In the second bullet point the meaning of the term “available
>>>> documented and material evidence” is explained. Actually, a
>>>> different expression was used in the previous text, being clarified
>>>> here; “available documented and empirical evidence”. When
>>>> defining a term, I think it is preferable to avoid using different
>>>> albeit equivalent expressions. Moreover, the equivalence of
>>>> “empirical” and “material” is debatable: according to my
>>>> Oxford dictionary
>>>> empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation
>>>> or experience rather than theory or pure logic
>>>>
>>>> material = denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than
>>>> the mind or spirit
>>>> I may agree with “empirical” but I am not sure I would agree
>>>> with “material”.
>>>> As you can see, this is a fussy comment. But the devil is in the
>>>> details... and in this case a naughty commenter (not my case) might
>>>> think that both are Freudian slips :)
>>>> 3. In the third and fourth bullet points, collections are addressed.
>>>> But the third point considers “cultural heritage collections”
>>>> and the fourth “museum collections”, actually in the same
>>>> copy-paste sentence. Is this difference intentional, or again a
>>>> slip? I imagine in both cases “cultural heritage collections”
>>>> must be used.
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------
>>>>
>>>> PROPOSAL:
>>>>
>>>> OLD:
>>>>
>>>> SCOPE OF THE CIDOC CRM
>>>>
>>>> The overall scope of the CIDOC CRM can be summarised in simple terms
>>>> as the curated, factual knowledge about the past at a human scale.
>>>>
>>>> However, a more detailed and useful definition can be articulated by
>>>> defining both the Intended Scope, a broad and maximally-inclusive
>>>> definition of general application principles, and the Practical
>>>> Scope, which is expressed by the overall scope of a growing
>>>> reference set of specific, identifiable documentation standards and
>>>> practices that the CIDOC CRM aims to semantically describe,
>>>> restricted, always, in its details to the limitations of the
>>>> Intended Scope.
>>>>
>>>> The reasons for this distinctions between Intended and Practical
>>>> Scope are twofold. Firstly, the CIDOC CRM is developed in a
>>>> “bottom-up” manner, starting from well-understood, actually and
>>>> widely used concepts of domain experts, which are disambiguated and
>>>> gradually generalized as more forms of encoding are encountered.
>>>> This aims to avoid the misadaptations and vagueness that can
>>>> sometimes be found in introspection-driven attempts to find
>>>> overarching concepts for such a wide scope, and provides stability
>>>> to the generalizations found. Secondly, it is a means to identify
>>>> and keep a focus on the concepts most needed by the communities
>>>> working in the scope of the CIDOC CRM and to maintain a well-defined
>>>> agenda for its evolution.
>>>>
>>>> The Intended Scope of the CIDOC CRM may, therefore, be defined as
>>>> all information required for the exchange and integration of
>>>> heterogeneous scientific and scholarly documentation about the past
>>>> at a human scale and the available documented and empirical evidence
>>>> for this. This definition requires further elaboration:
>>>>
>>>> ·    The term “scientific and scholarly documentation” is
>>>> intended to convey the requirement that the depth and quality of
>>>> descriptive information that can be handled by the CIDOC CRM should
>>>> be sufficient for serious academic research. This does not mean that
>>>> information intended for presentation to members of the general
>>>> public is excluded, but rather that the CRM is intended to provide
>>>> the level of detail and precision expected and required by heritage
>>>> professionals and researchers in the field.
>>>>
>>>> ·    As “available documented and material evidence” are
>>>> regarded all types of material collected and displayed by museums
>>>> and related institutions, as defined by ICOM[1], and other
>>>> collections, in-situ objects, sites, monuments and intangible
>>>> heritage relating to fields such as social history, ethnography,
>>>> archaeology, fine and applied arts, natural history, history of
>>>> sciences and technology.
>>>>
>>>> ·    The concept “documentation” includes the detailed
>>>> description of individual items, in situ or within collections,
>>>> groups of items and collections as a whole, as well as practices of
>>>> intangible heritage. It pertains to their current state as well as
>>>> to information about their past. The CIDOC CRM is specifically
>>>> intended to cover contextual information: the historical,
>>>> geographical and theoretical background that gives cultural heritage
>>>> collections much of their cultural significance and value.
>>>>
>>>> ·    The documentation of collections includes the detailed
>>>> description of individual items within collections, groups of items
>>>> and collections as a whole. The CIDOC CRM is specifically intended
>>>> to cover contextual information: the historical, geographical and
>>>> theoretical background that gives museum collections much of their
>>>> cultural significance and value. NEW:
>>>>
>>>> SCOPE OF THE CIDOC CRM
>>>>
>>>> The overall scope of the CIDOC CRM can be summarised in simple terms
>>>> as the curated, factual knowledge about the past at a human scale.
>>>>
>>>> However, a more detailed and useful definition can be articulated by
>>>> defining both the Intended Scope, a broad and maximally-inclusive
>>>> definition of general application principles, and the Practical
>>>> Scope, which is expressed by the overall scope of a growing
>>>> reference set of specific, identifiable documentation standards and
>>>> practices that the CIDOC CRM aims to semantically describe,
>>>> restricted, always, in its details to the limitations of the
>>>> Intended Scope.
>>>>
>>>> The reasons for this distinctions between Intended and Practical
>>>> Scope are twofold. Firstly, the CIDOC CRM is developed in a
>>>> “bottom-up” manner, starting from well-understood, actually and
>>>> widely used concepts of domain experts, which are disambiguated and
>>>> gradually generalized as more forms of encoding are encountered.
>>>> This aims to avoid the misadaptations and vagueness that can
>>>> sometimes be found in introspection-driven attempts to find
>>>> overarching concepts for such a wide scope, and provides stability
>>>> to the generalizations found. Secondly, it is a means to identify
>>>> and keep a focus on the concepts most needed by the communities
>>>> working in the scope of the CIDOC CRM and to maintain a well-defined
>>>> agenda for its evolution.
>>>>
>>>> The Intended Scope of the CIDOC CRM may, therefore, be defined as
>>>> all information required for the exchange and integration of
>>>> heterogeneous scientific and scholarly documentation about the past
>>>> at a human scale and the available documented and empirical evidence
>>>> for this. This definition requires further elaboration:
>>>>
>>>> ·    The term “scientific and scholarly documentation” is
>>>> intended to convey the requirement that the depth and quality of
>>>> descriptive information that can be handled by the CIDOC CRM should
>>>> be sufficient for serious academic research. This does not mean that
>>>> information intended for presentation to members of the general
>>>> public is excluded, but rather that the CRM is intended to provide
>>>> the level of detail and precision expected and required by heritage
>>>> professionals engaged in  cultural and scientific heritage and
>>>> researchers in these fields.
>>>>
>>>> ·    As “available documented and empirical material evidence”
>>>> are regarded all types of material collected and displayed by
>>>> museums and related institutions, as defined by ICOM[1], and other
>>>> collections of things providing evidence about the past, in-situ
>>>> objects, sites, monuments and intangible heritage relating to fields
>>>> such as social history, ethnography, archaeology, fine and applied
>>>> arts, natural history, history of sciences and technology.
>>>>
>>>> ·    The concept “documentation” includes the detailed
>>>> description of individual items, in situ or within collections,
>>>> groups of items and collections as a whole, as well as practices of
>>>> intangible heritage. It pertains to their current state as well as
>>>> to information about their past. The CIDOC CRM is specifically
>>>> intended to cover contextual information: the historical,
>>>> geographical and theoretical background that gives cultural heritage
>>>> collections much of their cultural significance and value.
>>>>
>>>> ·    Delete the fourth paragraph, it is repeating the third!
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------
>>>>
>>>> [1] The ICOM Statutes provide a definition of the term “museum”
>>>> at http://icom.museum/statutes.html#2 The term “should” is used
>>>> in the sense of a binding recommendation by the standards. This is
>>>> what users adhering to the standard have to do. It “should” be
>>>> consistently used throughout the document.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220301/3e4385fb/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list