Dear all,
just a comment: the epistemic nature isn't also confirmed by the
argument that the E31 are also kind of propositions, statements about
real, non fictional things (instances of E89 too)? I understand
George's argument about the dependence on the intentionality to define
such things, but should we consider that part of the identity criteria
of the man made things is the functional use of these objects (resulting
from a human activity) ?
just a thought,
BRs,
Athina
On 2025-08-24 21:33, George Bruseker via Crm-sig 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
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
