A comment.... A document can be nonfiction or fiction. The act of assigning E31 Document to a document requires that a decision is made. Let's say I have an archaeologist's notebook which has text and sketches which documents the aspects of an ancient site. The scope note says "implicit or explicitly expressed intention". So either there is something empirically explicit that is evidence of the purpose/intent of the document, or there is something implicit that is also evidence of the intention. It could be that it is part of an official process or job, but implicitly it could be the context in which it took place. I don't think the scope note says that we have to subjectively guess what the creator was thinking in their mind (George is this what you are saying? - "we rarely know the author’s mind"). There is no separation of mind from matter.
The intention should be empirically apparent. The work is assessed in terms of its overall context which will inevitably indicate the intention of its creation. The archaeologist documents a site while being paid or funded to document the site as part of a formal archaeological process/project. In other words, intention is empirically 'baked into' the concept of this immaterial concept. Perhaps some more words are required? This issue seems to overlap with other past conversations. ? D On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 at 19:33, George Bruseker <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Martin, > > Thank you for your proposed refinement of E31 Document. I would like to > share some concerns, as I remain unconvinced that this scope note > alteration is a useful addition to the CRM. > > My unease comes from the fact that E31 seems to be an *epistemic* rather > than an *ontological* category. It feels a little like having “hero” or > “villain” as subclasses of Person: whether something qualifies depends on > perspective, not on universally observable qualities. This seems at odds > with the CRM’s “neutral point of view” principle, which I regard as > essential for an international standard aiming at a reality-based, shared > representation. > > The new scope note, as I read it, emphasizes the *intention of the author* > as the criterion for classification. That is problematic: we rarely know > the author’s mind, and even if we could, intention is not a stable > ontological feature. A few examples illustrate the difficulties: > > > - > > *Samuel George Morton – Crania Americana (1839):* a phrenological work > that strongly influenced scientific racism. Was it “about reality”? By > intention, yes; by our current understanding, no. > - > > *Herbert Risley – The People of India (1908):* similarly framed as > objective classification, but now widely regarded as pseudo-scientific and > harmful. > - > > *The Popol Vuh (16th century):* intended as an account of reality, but > referring to gods and cosmologies not aligned with the CRM’s “reality” > domain. > - > > *Johann Becher – Physica Subterranea (1667):* a major work of > phlogiston theory. Again, intended as truth claims about the world, but > about entities that (in our episteme) do not exist. > > In all these cases, deciding whether they are “documents” requires > epistemic judgement, not neutral description. Moreover, for some, > classifying them as “documents about reality” risks forcing modellers into > positions they may find objectionable. > > The cleaner modelling solution already exists: all of these works are > unambiguously E73 Information Objects. Their treatment as “documents” in > particular times or contexts can be captured through P2 has type or via > event-based modelling (e.g., E13 Attribute Assignment). This allows us to > represent the social fact of “taken as documentation” without building > epistemic judgements into the ontology itself. > > In short, I think E31 complicates rather than clarifies. The CRM’s > strength has always been to stick to the neutral “facts of the matter.” For > that reason, I would argue against expanding or refining E31 and instead > rely on the mechanisms we already have. > > Best regards, > > George > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 2:43 PM Dominic Oldman via Crm-sig < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Martin, >> >> It's got bigger! 🙂 >> >> You give a comprehensive description of Documentation. >> >> D >> >> >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 at 12:18, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Here my reworking, based on Dominic's comments. I prefer a more verbose >>> form. >>> >>> "This class comprises identifiable immaterial items that make >>> propositions about reality, often called non-fiction. These >>> propositions may be expressed in text, graphics, images, audiograms, >>> videograms or by other similar means. >>> >>> Typical examples are scientific records and studies, observational data, >>> realistic portraits, depictions of landscapes or buildings, log books of >>> ships and many others. Documentation databases are regarded as >>> instances of E31 Document. This class should not be confused with the >>> concept “document” in Information Technology which denotes any kind of >>> digital object (of “file”) and is compatible with E73 Information Object. >>> >>> In general, it is the implicit or explicitly expressed intention in the >>> creation of the item that justifies the classification as an instance of >>> E31 Document, which distinguishes it from other kinds, such as fiction or >>> software, and not its claimed truthfulness with respect to reality. >>> Deviations with respect to reality are typically unintended errors or >>> poorly supported assumptions, but also different cases of bias discussed in >>> the scientific discourse. It is the task of scientists and scholars to >>> assess truthfulness of instances of E31 Document. >>> >>> Only if the overall seriousness of an information object appears not to >>> be given, such as the article by Leo Taxil 1890 about the Freemasonry, the >>> documentalist should decide not to classify an item as instance of E31 >>> Document. Also, historical novels, such as “Sinuhe the Egyptian” by Mia >>> Waltari, 1945, which may incorporate or is inspired by facts are not >>> considered an instance of document because they are primarily fiction. >>> Fiction consists of narrative mainly based on imaginary events, people, >>> places, etc. >>> >>> [Leo Taxil wrote in 1890 a farce about the freemasons not intended to be >>> taken seriously, but getting "viral" as being real despite of his >>> confirmation that it was a hoax. It is the origin of conspiracy theories >>> about the . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxil_hoax]"; >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------ >>> 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 >>> >>> Email: [email protected] >>> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Crm-sig mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list >> >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
