Dear Martin, Rob,
If we consider the intended phenomenon in reality, we can observe
(through everyday experience or documentation) that humans use names for
identifying things. Insofar as humans live in cultural contexts, and
these are realized through languages, these names are in some way
related to, or valid in different languages.
If we stick to the ontological substance of E41 Appellation, we can
observe that people can use the "The Big Apple" appellation to identify
New York City even in sentences expressed in other languages than
English, and possibly without even understanding the meaning of this
expression.
This phenomenon, which occurs on Earth in billions of instances at every
moment, can be expressed, or has been expressed in the context of CIDOC
CRM in three ways:
* in using frbroo:F52 Name Use Activity
<https://ontome.net/class/262/namespace/6> which, as a subclass of
crm:E7 Activity <https://ontome.net/class/7/namespace/1>, captures
the information about the dynamic of human groups in space and time
and thus in a linguistic context. One could interpret sdh:C11
Appellation in a Language <https://ontome.net/class/365/namespace/3>
in this sense and add a property situating the activity in a
linguistic context
* in using LRM Nomen as Martin proposes. The concerned propositional
object captures the /intentional conten/t (as social philosophers
would say) of the belief that this appellation is validly usable, i.
e. understandable in this language in order to identify a thing
* in using sdh:C11 Appellation in a Language
<https://ontome.net/class/365/namespace/3> as it was originally
modelled in a social perspective, i.e. as a subclass of Intentional
State or State of Mind, situating in a temporal region (as temporal
phenomenon) the fact that a thing is considered as being validly
named with this appellation in a linguistic and social context. This
is the perspective of CRMsoc with a domain that complements CRMbase
from the 'inside' perspective (in the sense of intention carryied in
the _individual_ minds) and (indirectly) through observable
phenomena and documentation. Therefore not a State as alternative to
Event (in the same CRMbase domain) but something else, a sort of
quality of the minds of the believers —a state of mind— of the LRM
Nomen instance.
This said, one can consider the property crm:P1 is identified by
(identifies) <https://ontome.net/property/1/namespace/1> as a shortcut
and abstraction of this phenomenon, regardless of the ways of expressing
it summarized above, relating the /intended entity/ with an
/appellation/ of it.
In the same perspective of abstraction and simplification, and in my
opinion as a robust way, without adding subclasses of Persistent Item
which risks to be cumbersome and their substance not well defined and
rigid/disjoint, I'd be in favor, as already expressed, of adding an
additional property:
E41 Appellation --> P... is used in --> E56 Language
as a shortcut of another aspect of sdh:C11 Appellation in a Language
<https://ontome.net/class/365/namespace/3> (without engaging for the
moment in defining what this class is)
This solution seems to cope with the problem and brings the information
to the conceptual model in a concise and stringent way, without engaging
in the ontological discussion about the language in which an appellation
*is* (was it created in this language? is it used as such? etc. etc.).
The substance of the property, given all the examples you brought, seems
to be quite clear: the property expresses the observable fact (in
documentation and every day life) that an appellation is used in a
language (by an intentional community or society — not necessarily a
group with potential of acting together) as a valid identifier of an entity.
Best
Francesco
Le 15.12.22 à 20:38, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :
Dear Robert,
On 12/15/2022 4:57 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
This doesn't meet the requirements, unfortunately.
To my best understanding, and of others on this list, it has not made
sufficiently clear so far by you which semantics the linguistic
Appellation should comprise. Following our methodology, requirements
must be backed up by representative examples that allow for narrowing
down the senses to be comprised. The do not come from authority.
Most examples provided so far did not demonstrate the independence of
the language specificity of the Appellation from the individual
identified by it, but exactly the opposite. The difference is a matter
of fundamental logic of semantic networks, and cannot be ignored.
Examples must be sufficiently representative for a large set of data.
TGN, for instance, is huge, and domainßinstance specific. VIAF refers
to national libraries, not to languages. "The Big Apple" is a rather
rare case of a complete English noun phrase used as a place name,
which exactly fits the scope note of E41. It could be documented as
Title. Transliteration, you mentioned, does not create a language
specificity, but a script specificity.
Please respect that it belongs to our method to discuss, if the sense
of an original submission actually represents the best semantics fit
for purpose, and to modify it if needed. I simply act here, as any
CRM-SIG member should, as a knowledge engineer based on the examples
you and others provided and try to propose the most adequate solution,
and not to defend any position. I do not have any other project of my
own. Please stay in your answers on the level of arguments based on
representative examples and their interpretation.
sdh:C11 is a temporal entity -- the state of being named something --
and not a name itself. While interesting, as previously States have
been widely decreed as an anti-pattern to be avoided, it does not
meet the requirements set forth for E33_E41, which is that an
Appellation itself can have a Language.
Indeed I may not describe C11 as a State in the sense we discussed it.
It is as timeless as all our properties of persistent items. States
are better avoided if temporal inner bounds are to be given, because
they require complete observation, a sort of Closed World. This is not
the case here. But this distracts from the question to what the
language here pertains.
To repeat, if E33_41 is to enter unmodified CRMbase as you propose, it
needs a scope note and examples that disambiguate scope and senses.
Then, *it must* be differentiated from domain-instance specific use,
and the relevance
of the remaining scope must be argued. All examples must be discussed
and voted for.
Rather than an anonymous "requirement set forth", I definitely would
like to see your examples of use of E33_41 in your applications. Is
that possible? Are you sure they fit the independence from the domain
instance? Are you sure there will be no abuse in the sense I,
Francesco and LRM propose?
Best,
Martin
So I believe that this does not solve the problem as stated - that
E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation does not have a description outside of
the RDFS document.
Rob
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 3:54 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Francesco, dear George,
After the discussion in the last CRM SIG meeting, I propose to
follow Francesco's "sdh:C11 Appellation in a Language
<https://ontome.net/class/365/namespace/3> class." as *a longpath
for P1*.
I propose to generalize the context. It could be a language, it
could be a country, a Group. I propose to analyze, if this can be
mapped or identified with LRM Nomen and its properties. It can
further be made compatible with the RDF labels with a language
tag, which are domain instance specific and not range specific,
and of course can represent the TGN language attributes. For
VIAF, we would need a "national" context, i.e., the national library.
Best,
Martin
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022, 2:43 pm Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig,
<[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Martin, all
Sorry to intervene so late in this interesting exchange, I
was away for some days and I'm going through my emails now.
I encountered the same questions while working a few years
ago in a history project interested in the evolution of the
use of names and surnames.
The approach of the project was similar to the one presented
by Martin below and amounted to saying that it is difficult
to state to which language a first name, or surname, belongs
in itself, except for some cases or if we consider the
region of origin, but what is relevant is that this specific
string of characters is used at a given time (and attested
in the sources) in a language or in another (i.e. in a
society speaking this language) to identify a person or an
object.
To capture the information envisaged in the project in the
sense of this approach I decided to stick to the substance
of crm:E41 Appellation class:
"This class comprises signs, either meaningful or not, or
arrangements of signs following a specific syntax, that are
used or can be used to refer to and identify a specific
instance of some class or category within a certain context.
Instances of E41 Appellation do not identify things by their
meaning, even if they happen to have one, but _instead by
convention, tradition, or agreement_." (CRM 6.2).
and to add in what has become the SDHSS CRM unofficial
extension the sdh:C11 Appellation in a Language
<https://ontome.net/class/365/namespace/3> class.
This class has as you'll see a clear social, i.e.
intentional flavor, and captures the information that some
appellation is considered as a valid appellation of a thing
in a language (i.e. society speaking his language) during an
attested time-span.
This was also an attempt to cope with the frbroo:F52 Name
Use Activity issue:
413 Pursuit and Name Use Activity to CRMsoc
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-413-pursuit-and-name-use-activity-to-crmsoc>
573 CRMsoc & F51 Pursuit & F52 Name Use Activity
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-573-crmsoc-f51-pursuit-f52-name-use-activity>
which is somewhat slowed down by the ongoing exchanges
around the nature and substance of the social world as
foundation of the CRMsoc extension.
But one could easily provide another substance to an
/Appellation in a Language/ class making it a Name Use
Activity (in a Language) class (and subclass of crm:E13
Attribute Assignment
<https://ontome.net/class/13/namespace/1> or crm:E7 Activity).
This would be in my opinion a good way of coping with the
wish expressed by George at the beginning of this exchange
to "make [this kind of classes] full classes in the standard
so that they are fully vetted and controlled. It is a
fundamental class. It should be in the standard in the first
place", wish that I definitely share. And also to stick, as
far as I can understand, to the modelling principles
reminded by Martin.
And it would also finally solve the issues still open, to my
knowledge, concerning the original FRBR-oo class.
Best
Francesco
--
------------------------------------
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:[email protected]
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
--
------------------------------------
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:[email protected]
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
