While this is interesting, the issue is not to re-engineer names and languages from first principles. There is an existing class, E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation, which is in use in many projects and products around the world. The issue, as raised by George, is that it is thought that it would be better for this class to have documentation outside of the RDFS document that defines it technically.
There are two possible outcomes of this issue: 1. It is agreed that there should be human-intended documentation for the class, and then that documentation gets written for E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation. 2. It is not agreed that there should be human-intended documentation for the class, and documentation gets written outside of CIDOC-CRM. Rob On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 5:05 AM Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > [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 > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
