(resending--listserv said too long)
From: Pat Riva Sent: May 14, 2018 10:57 PM To: Martin Doerr; crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E74 Group (from LRMoo discussions) Hello all, We can certainly consider the option of creating an LRMoo class to correspond to LRM-E8 Collective Agent, and having that be a subclass of E74 Group. This new LRMoo class would be a superclass of F11 Corporate Body and fit in the hierarchy between E74 and F11. With this solution, the characteristics of having a specific name, and sufficient organizational characteristics so as to exert responsibility for works, expressions, manifestations would be characteristics of the new LRMoo class, not of E74. This would work fine for LRMoo. In FRBRoo we have F11 Corporate Body as a superclass of E40 Legal Body. LRM-E8 Collective Agent is a superclass of F11. I have no problem in maintaining those levels in LRMoo. I personally don't think it is necessary to broaden E40 at all, and it would be a big step to broaden sufficiently it to encompass LRM-E8. Where I continue to have a problem is in the hierarchy above E74. E74 Group is supposed to be a subclass of E39 Actor. But it does not seem to me that all instances allowed as instances of E74 are in fact instances of E39. I agree that this is a problem, and I can't see any way to fix it that does not introduce some sort of backwards incompatibility. Either we narrow E74 so that it can remain a subclass of E39 (causing a potential issue for some instances previously recognized in E74), or we say that E74 is NOT a subclass of E39 any more, causing a whole bunch of other backwards compatibility issues. Or the third option is that we broaden E39 Actor enough that E74 can stay as its subclass (and as a result LRM-R6 Agent would NOT be equal to E39), but I think that is also not backwards compatible and would have an impact on some properties. For the LRM mapping, the start of this issue, if we go with the third solution, we have LRM-R6 Agent as a subclass of the broader E39 Actor (not its equal), and then LRM-E8 Collective Agent is a subclass of E74 Group. Then we would declare LRMoo classes for these two LRM entities. In a solution where LRM-E8 is not equal to E74, then we only need to account for the LRM property LRM-R30 (Agent is member of/has member Collective Agent) in LRMoo, not in CRM. It then no longer matters whether we discuss E74 Groups that have other E74 Groups as members. Pat Pat Riva Associate University Librarian, Collection Services Concordia University Vanier Library (VL-301-61) 7141 Sherbrooke Street West Montreal, QC H4B 1R6 Canada +1-514-848-2424 ext. 5255 pat.r...@concordia.ca<mailto:pat.r...@concordia.ca> ________________________________ From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> Sent: May 10, 2018 10:00 AM To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E74 Group (from LRMoo discussions) Dear All, This is a complex issue. Firstly, we cannot support in the CRM Collective Agent or E74 Group being the complement of Person under Agent/ Actor. This violates the Open World condition, that definitions of classes must be indentifiable by positive criteria, and that any set of subclasses may be extended when we learn more about the world. Secondly, reducing the scope of E74 Group is a non-monotonic change, causing backwards incompatibility. Thirdly, we should always be aware that the CRM is not a terminological system, but classes are meant to be domain and range of properties. Reducing the definition of a class is justified when it helps avoiding obviously unintended models. 4) The question is, if a narrower definition of E74 helps avoiding confusing use of properties, or only satisfies a classification. CRM classes should be, in question of doubt, more inclusive than exclusive. The discussion, if a government represents itself or its citizens clearly shows, that it is not useful for the CRM to draw a line in which the representation question is resolved in a particularly unambiguous way. It is also not useful to apply principles (as formulated in our new guide lines that Christian-Emil cited) that require intimate knowledge of the object. Archaeologists will hardly know such details in many cases, but lots of evidence of collective behavior. Therefore, we apply a principle of potentiality: Having the potential to act collectively. May be this is not explicit enough in the definition of E74. The requirement to have a name is, in my opinion, overly strict, and in archaeological cases widely inaccessible. The question if a "nation" is or is not an instance of E74 creates a typical conflict between competing classification systems. I think the essence of what we have discussed in Cologne was if there are unifying criteria that would exclude per se a collective behavior. I would draw a line between individual behavior that exhibits similarities without requiring interaction and behavior that is substantially interaction based. In that sense, being German or Greek or Christian or Buddhist or atheist would be an individual classification. Being a Greek citizen however not. A Roman-catholic "christianity" participating in the clerical care would be a group, as well as a spontaneous no-name gang. A "nation" may or may not maintain ties that enable or have lead to collective action, such as migrations. One may distinguish those participating in a community from those being born or raised in a community but acting outside as independent individuals. "Atheists" may hardly be considered as a Group ever. Interesting are cases of social groups suffering persecution, often falsely accused of acting collectively against the interests of others. I would not require an organized leadership for E74. I have rather the impression that we will need E74 to remain superclass of Collective Agent. We may more think of relaxing "legal body" to Collective Agent, than reducing E74. Thoughts? Best, Martin ________________________________ From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr><mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Pat Riva <pat.r...@concordia.ca><mailto:pat.r...@concordia.ca> Sent: 07 May 2018 06:27 To: CRM-SIG Subject: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: E74 Group (from LRMoo discussions) Hello all, This issue is not quite new, we discussed E74 in the context of working on LRMoo at the Cologne meeting. This proposal results from the resolution we favoured at the time. ISSUE: Definition of E74 Group, add text to scope note of E21 Person In the entity hierarchy E74 Group is a subclass of E39 Actor, and a superclass of E40 Legal Body, as well as of F11 Corporate Body and F39 Family from FRBRoo (LRMoo). E39 Actor is equal to LRM-E6 Agent, which is the superclass for LRM-E8 Collective Agent (which is the superclass of F11 Corporate Body and F39 Family). Structurally then, E74 Group should be equal to LRM-E8 Collective Agent. However, the scope note of E74 Group is broader than LRM-E8 and includes certain groups that are not actually agents (LRM-E6) and which would not actually be instances of E39 Actor. Propose to modify the scope note of E74 Group so that it clearly corresponds to LRM-E8 Collective Agent. To do this any groups of people not having agency, such as national, religious, cultural, ethnic groups, must be excluded from the scope of E74. In this way there is no problem with E74 as a subclass of E39 Actor or superclass of E40, F11 and F39. Nothing needs to change formally, however certain instances attributed to this class may be incorrect. (rest of original message omitted)
