Dear Martin & Christian-Emile > Il giorno 20 feb 2016, alle ore 18:49, martin <mar...@ics.forth.gr> ha > scritto: > > Dear Franco, > > This rises two important methodological questions (also supporting > Christian-Emils response) : > > On 19/2/2016 3:50 μμ, Franco Niccolucci wrote: >> The correct definition mentioned by Christian-Emile refers to what I would >> call “stand-alone” intangible heritage. >> >> But, there is always an intangible component in tangible heritage, for >> example what turns a stone into heritage. > In the CRM, as a principle, we reject this inversion of agency or causality, > which is common in the scholarly discourse: The stone does nothing, it does > not change. Therefore it cannot turn into heritage.
I never said that. I said (it is written above): “what turns a stone into heritage”. The stone is the grammatical object, i.e. the entity that is acted upon by the subject (here “what”). If you prefer, the same sentence may be stated: “a stone is turned into heritage by its intangible heritage component”. > Only people can start regarding it as heritage. People regarding it as > heritage will be supported by evidence about how people treat the stone or > refer to the stone. When the stone becomes (passively) heritage, there must > be human activities which are the cause, including human products such as > texts, paintings etc. A painting (for example representing rites performed on that stone) cannot do anything, it is a painting. Instead, it is somebody’s interpretation of the painting and identification of the two stones, the material one and the depicted one (sort of mental de-referencing), that identifies, or perhaps defines, the intangible component of the material stone. Even a quotation in an ancient text “Franco’s stone was sacred to the religion of the Francos” does not suffice, as again you must identify the two stones, the one quoted and the one you have in your hand. > All this can be quite well documented in the CRM. If the stone were the > cause, different cultures couldn't have different perceptions about the > stone. So, I am not sure what else we would like to put into a formal > ontology? If we have evidence that the stone itself changes, we will model it. I never said the contrary. But I am not sure (probably my ignorance) that all the passages are correctly documented: 1. There is a stone (call it A) in the real world (probably an E18 Physical Thing) 2. There is a stone (call it B) mentioned in a source (a text, a painting). This is not a material stone, it is a conceptual one, 3. The two stones are "the same”, or, better, the conceptual stone B in the source may be associated to (identified with?) the physical one, A. 4. Somebody has made the above association. 5. This makes stone A an “interesting” thing. If any of the above passages is removed (because it is wrong, it is a fake, whatever) Stone A loses much if its interest. Below two serious and a hilarious examples. First example (real, courtesy Achille Felicetti). "It comes and goes" In the 1970s’ a famous linguistic professor, Lejeune, had an Hungarian student, Harmatta, also to become a famous scholar in linguistics, who told him about the discovery in a part of ancient Pannonia (now Hungary) of some Venetic inscriptions on a stone [our stone A], found in an excavation by Elisabeth Jerem, a well-reputed archaeologist whom most of you will know and who did not report about the “inscriptions". That language until then was believed to be spoken only in Veneto by the Veneti. Based on images of the inscriptions that the student brought to France, Harmatta graduated and published academic studies. Lejeune also published further work endorsing his student's paper, and a whole corpus was built about the Veneti of Pannonia. [My comment: this turned the “engraved” stone into heritage, and the stone entered the Pecs museum holdings] In the early 1990's two Italian professors, Prosdocimi and Marinetti, went to Hungary to see first hand the artifacts. Once at the museum of Pecs, they looked at all the material cited in Harmatta's paper, and there were no inscriptions! What had believed to be an inscription were simply natural scratches on the stone!! It then resulted that Lejeune had never seen the stone, only poor images of it. This finding was then indipendently confirmed by Austrian scholars, and is now universally accepted. (See: A.L. Prosdocimi, Sulle inesistenti iscrizioni venetiche di Pannonia, in "Rivista di Epigrafia Italica", sezione di "Studi Etruschi" 58, 1992, pp.315-316). Thus stone A is “turned" by the first (Harmatta’s) “discovery” into heritage, the witness of Venetic presence in modern Hungary, and documented as such: E24 Physical Man-made Thing P128 carries E34 Inscription P2 has type E55 Type “Venetic”. But in 1992 the stone A is “returned” by Prosdocimi to its pristine state of irrelevant pebble: E19 Physical Thing P56 bears feature E26 Physical Feature (scratches). Note that in the meanwhile the stone that we call A is unaware of all these intellectual twiddles and academic fights, and lies in the Pecs museum in a happy ataraxia state, as it has done for millennia. My point is that the first, pre-1992, statement is not factual, as demonstrated by later research; interpretation should be acknowledged as such. Christian-Emile’s ontologist should be aware of this, and avoid endorsing dubious interpretations (actually, interpretations are always dubious) by recording them as facts: “carries inscription”, are you sure? No, you just trust Harmatta and Lejeune without saying it, so you should say “carries inscription ACCORDING to Harmatta etc." However, in most cases the interpretation is stable and pacific, so the documenter may be content with a synthetic statement, i.e. without mentioning the whys. The issue is that the underlying ontology must allow for such specification, when required, and this leads us in a risky route. Were Harmatta and Lejeune talking of this stone, the one we call A? Or maybe another one which was lost/discarded/... Back to the Pecs stone, or stone A as I call it: it has oscillated between being tangible heritage, and being just rubbish, with two different documentations, both correct at some time, but with no physical change. This shows that the documentation may change with any change in the documented object, contrarily to what Martin states above. --------------------------------------------------------------- Second example (real, courtesy of Sorin Hermon). “To be or not to be, that is the question” The Venus of Berekhat Ram is a pebble found on the Golan Heights, which by its discoverer was claimed to be a female figurine, or as it is usually called, a “Venus”. The artifact dates from Middle Palaeolithic (230.000 BC). It is significant, because the oldest female figures known so far are dated around 50.000 BC. Other scholars dispute this claim, as it is unclear: a) if the scratches on the surface were man-made, and (a’) intentional, i.e. carvings b) if such carvings were made with the intention of representing something c) if the representation concerns a female. The full story with images is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Berekhat_Ram So what is this? Heritage or not? Possible heritage? And how do we document it? a) E19 Physical Thing P56 bears feature E26 Physical Feature P2 has type E55 Type “scratches" a') E24 Physical Man-made Thing P56 bears feature E26 Physical Feature P2 has type E55 Type “carvings” b) E24 Physical Man-made Thing P65 shows visual item E38 Image c) E24 Physical Man-made Thing P62 depicts (P62.1 mode of depiction E55 Type “carvings”) E38 Image P2 has type E55 Type “Venus” -------------------------------------------------- Third example (fictitious, and a bit joking to relieve you from the pain of reading up to here; courtesy Lehar for names and plot). In the National Archaeological Museum of Pontevedro, among the exhibits there is a stone coming from the archaeological site excavated by Count Danilo. The stone is of difficult interpretation, however it is considered part of the Pontevedran heritage as it is kept and exhibited in the national museum [heritage is what museums consider as such]. After many discussions and coups de theatre, the museum director, Count Zeta, decides to ask Danilo why they brought that stone to the museum. It comes up that the archaeological team used that stone just to keep a door open and avoid that the wind slams it; it was packed with other similar stones, these being “real" heritage assets, by the movers when the excavation was closed, and when it arrived at the museum it was part of the “heritage” package, so it went on display. In the meanwhile, Danilo has fallen in love with Hanna, a rich museum sponsor, and they marry, what secures funding to archaeology forever - but that’s another story... This example shows that being heritage or not may depend on randomness. It is fictitious, but an example of the opposite case i.e. real heritage misunderstood as rubbish is reported here: http://nypost.com/2015/10/27/modern-art-exhibit-mistaken-for-trash-and-thrown-away/. --------------------------------------------- In conclusion, the moral is that Christian-Emile’s ontologist should not embark in deciding whether the stone is true heritage or fake one. But the underlying ontology should provide tools to convey the expert’s opinion about it and the documentation activity should also bear in mind - often taking the liberty of disregarding it for practical reasons - that the nature of things is not built-in, stamped in the things themselves, as sometimes we are prone to believe. Although men are not (yet) telepathic, Martin, there are methods (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method) supporting scientific communication to increase our knowledge and enable reasoning. If incapable to deal with them, an ontology is just a sophisticated way of setting up an (uninteresting) inventory of stuff. Best Franco > (We could discuss Buddha's footprints next week?). >> This is hard to document together with the artifacts. One may have the >> (perhaps wrong) impression that the CRM focuses on the tangible details >> rather than on the equally important intangible ones. > The CRM focusses on what we find in documentation structures. Surprisingly, > museum databases do not much analyze in formal fields such "intangibles". I > rember a workshop on history of art in Rome. Asking about their concept of > "work", participants clearly stated to me that they do not want to discuss > such a concept. In the end, librarians did, and then we modelled it. There > has never been any other judgement of focus in the CRM than data structures > maintained by relevant communities, and the ability to assign an > intersubjective identity to the entities we model, because otherwise they > would not integrate with other data. > > Of course, if relevant communities do not communicate with us , we miss > relevant foci ;-) > > best, > > martin >> >> Franco >> >> Prof. Franco Niccolucci >> Director, VAST-LAB >> PIN - U. of Florence >> Scientific Coordinator >> ARIADNE - PARTHENOS >> >> Piazza Ciardi 25 >> 59100 Prato, Italy >> >> >> >>> Il giorno 19 feb 2016, alle ore 14:29, Christian-Emil Smith Ore >>> <c.e.s....@iln.uio.no> ha scritto: >>> >>> Intangible cultural heritage has partly become a buzz-word. However, the >>> term is ok. Documentation of intangible cultural heritage has indeed very >>> long traditions. This is what scholars in field linguistics, philology, >>> onomasiology etnogragraphy/etnology, social anthropologists etc etc have >>> been doing for centuries. It is nothing new here. On should remember that >>> an ontology is used to describe the way we can conceptualise our >>> understanding of the "intangible" in order to document it. >>> >>> The UNESCO declaration is also quite clear, see below. In the CRM universe >>> FRBRoo is the most suitable ontology. Patrick Le Boeuf has given several >>> presentations on this. >>> >>> Chr-Emil >>> >>> 1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, >>> expressions, >>> knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and >>> cultural spaces associated >>> therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals >>> recognize as part of their >>> cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from >>> generation to generation, >>> is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their >>> environment, their >>> interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense >>> of identity and >>> continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human >>> creativity. For the >>> purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such >>> intangible cultural >>> heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights >>> instruments, as well as with >>> the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and >>> individuals, and of >>> sustainable development. >>> >>> 2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is >>> manifested inter >>> alia in the following domains: >>> (a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the >>> intangible >>> cultural heritage; >>> (b) performing arts; >>> (c) social practices, rituals and festive events; >>> (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; >>> (e) traditional craftsmanship. >>> >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin >>>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:59 PM >>>> To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Recording Intangible Cultural Heritage >>>> >>>> Dear Phil, >>>> >>>> "Intangible heritage" is a bit a buzzword. I suggest to identify different >>>> senses: >>>> >>>> A) A particular activity, in particular performances. FRBRoo contains a >>>> model >>>> for that, but that can be refined. My colleague George Bruseker has worked >>>> on ome issues, may be other crm-sig members have. >>>> >>>> B) A type of activity characteristic for a community, culture. Could be >>>> technical know how, ceremonies etc. >>>> This requires a pattern model as in ecology, which "rises" CRM properties >>>> to >>>> a "typically..." metalevel. We have examples from biodiversity, may be >>>> other >>>> crm-sig members have such models. >>>> Each pattern is supported by evidence by individual events. >>>> >>>> C) An oral tradition. These are Information Objects, the carriers being >>>> people. >>>> A slight modification of FRBRoo could cover the details. >>>> >>>> Comments? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> On 19/2/2016 12:43 μμ, Carlisle, Philip wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I’m resending this as it didn’t appear to get through. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As you may know the Arches Project has been using the CRM as the >>>> backbone for a cultural heritage inventory system. This is working well >>>> and is >>>> being implemented by many projects. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> One such project now wants to use Arches to record intangible >>>> heritage and so needs to create resource graphs, based on an ontology, in >>>> order to do this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can the CRM be used to represent the intangible heritage? If not >>>> does anyone know of an ontology that can? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Phil Carlisle >>>> >>>> Data Standards Supervisor >>>> >>>> Data Standards Unit, Listing Group >>>> >>>> Historic England >>>> >>>> The Engine House >>>> >>>> Fire Fly Avenue >>>> >>>> Swindon >>>> >>>> SN2 2EH >>>> >>>> Tel: +44 (0)1793 414824 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/> >>>> http://thesaurus.historicengland.org.uk/ >>>> >>>> <http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/> >>>> http://www.heritagedata.org/blog/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We are the public body that looks after England's historic >>>> environment. We champion historic places, helping people to understand, >>>> value and care for them, now and for the future. >>>> Sign up to our enewsletter to keep up to date with our latest news, >>>> advice and listings. >>>> >>>> HistoricEngland.org.uk Twitter: @HistoricEngland >>>> >>>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain >>>> personal views which are not the views of Historic England unless >>>> specifically >>>> stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your >>>> system and >>>> notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information >>>> in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to Historic >>>> England >>>> may become publicly available. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Crm-sig mailing list >>>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | >>>> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | >>>> | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | >>>> | >>>> 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 | >>>> | >>>> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Crm-sig mailing list >>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | > | Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr | > | > 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 | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
