Hmm, a bit worried when all y'all start rambling about "prejudice for or against a doctrine or ethical position”, buddhism, the Catholic Church, holy conception and other esoteric things. Maybe the best we can do is to document the intention of producing an offspring (insemination, cloning, bonga-bonga for natural birth etc) and the outcome (birth, abortion, stillborn etc). So a new super-class of birth and and a few typical sub-classes plus typing just to avoid accusations of male CIS prejudices and cultural bias in the CRM.
So what happened and a way of catching how it went "in historical documentation practice”. best / tw >> > On 23 Sep 2019, at 21:18, Franco Niccolucci <franco.niccolu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Absolutely agree. As long as we have questions to answer, we are alive. > > My comments were inspired by a recent discussion of Man-made thing vs > Human-made thing. So we must pay attention not to raise any adverse reaction > in wording, not in substance. Wording may suggest something beyond our > intention. > > Did like my Latin speech? If so, I can also send emails in Latin :) I hope > this qualifies me as a Latin speaker, a capacity I aspire to be fully > recognized. > > Best > > Franco > > > Prof. Franco Niccolucci > Director, VAST-LAB > PIN - U. of Florence > Scientific Coordinator > ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS > > Editor-in-Chief > ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) > > Piazza Ciardi 25 > 59100 Prato, Italy > > >> Il giorno 23 set 2019, alle ore 20:12, Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> ha >> scritto: >> >> Dear Franco, >> >> I agree in all points. >> >> The problem with an ontology as the CRM is of course not to create any >> prejudice for or against a doctrine or ethical position. >> >> As we agree, the CRM has to do with things that are identified in historical >> documentation practice. The amount of matter present in a human body over >> time and the eternal soul, by rebirth or after conception, free will or >> determined by context etc. allows for many definitions of what a person is. >> Therefore, in the CRM, we take from this the minimal commitment, which is >> not in conflict with any wider definitions. This (E21) is between birth and >> death, as an Actor and a material body. It makes no statement whatsoever, if >> a person in social or divine understanding extends to more. >> >> Concluding, I do not see any conflict with the Catholic position, nor a >> Buddhist one. We state that "end of pregnancy" may not result in an E21, >> regardless what someone regards as a person. >> >> In other terms, we do not make philosophies about exhaustive definitions of >> categories of reality. We make minimal commitments in order to have an >> agreement about identity of things we refer to by a mechanical system, and >> which we can use for scholarly, non-mechanical, non-mathematical exchange of >> things in relation to such identities (or not). >> >> Would you agree? >> >> All the best, >> >> Martin >> >> On 9/23/2019 5:38 PM, Franco Niccolucci wrote: >>> Dear Martin, I agree with you. I tried to suggest a solution with what we >>> have, of course introducing new entities/properties may be even better. >>> >>> However, when stating that a birth event may not end in a new E21 Person we >>> must be very careful. According to the doctrine of Catholic Church, a >>> Person exists since the very first moment of conception, when the first >>> cell comes into existence and starts splitting. Such cell or assembly of >>> cells is assumed, for example, to have a soul since the very beginning of >>> its existence. Maybe also the Orthodox Church has the same belief. >>> >>> I am just mentioning the above without taking part in favour or against, of >>> course. >>> >>> Thus end of pregnancy should not be opposed to Birth unless we formulate >>> the scope note of the latter very carefully. I mean that what distinguishes >>> a Birth from an end of pregnancy which is not a Birth should be stated >>> without offending anybody. >>> >>> On a different but related note, I think that a clear distinction among the >>> different cases of end of pregnancy where the baby is not born alive is >>> unlikely to be documented in historical documents, so a generic category >>> would probably suit better this particular case. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Franco >>> >>> Prof. Franco Niccolucci >>> Director, VAST-LAB >>> PIN - U. of Florence >>> Scientific Coordinator >>> ARIADNEplus - PARTHENOS >>> >>> Editor-in-Chief >>> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) >>> >>> Piazza Ciardi 25 >>> 59100 Prato, Italy >>> >>> >>> >>>> Il giorno 23 set 2019, alle ore 15:51, Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> >>>> ha scritto: >>>> >>>> Dear Franco, All, >>>> >>>> I agree, we have typically no coming into existence, or it is quite >>>> undefined. This is a nice case to discuss the border cases we encounter >>>> with all concepts. >>>> >>>> Typically, the biological process is that of birth or alike. The stillborn >>>> baby may be buried without social identity given. We could have a type of >>>> Birth, with all except the coming into existence. We could agree that >>>> ontologically, there is some coming into existence, but a birth event does >>>> not necessarily end in a new E21 Person. >>>> >>>> The methodologically important question is which states of ignorance do we >>>> encounter? Are the typical historical documents, in which the outcome of a >>>> document birth may be unknown as it is in reality before it happens? Or >>>> are the stillborn or miscarriage clearly distinct, because we normally >>>> describe birth as secondary information about a Person? >>>> >>>> I assume the typical document uncertainty is between abortion, >>>> miscarriage, stillborn or dying at birth, but clearly separated if the >>>> baby lives. As an independent event, it is alternative to Birth. That >>>> would rather suggest a superclass of Birth, ending pregnancy. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Martin >>>> >>>> On 9/23/2019 12:58 PM, Franco Niccolucci wrote: >>>> >>>>> As already explained I would better avoid Birth, and even Coming into >>>>> existence. >>>>> Birth has two properties P96 by mother and P97 by father, the former >>>>> being of course more important. Using E5 Event does not allow this, so >>>>> you can only use P11 had participant. If I remember well there is no >>>>> P11.1 in the role of, but perhaps this may be harmlessly added. If not, a >>>>> dirty solution is giving a Type to the Actor involved like >>>>> P11 had participant E39 Actor ‘Mary Doe’ P2 has type “mother” >>>>> Maybe colleagues can find a more elegant solution; type in this case is a >>>>> role, not a property of the lady. But in my opinion only a *P11.1 in the >>>>> role of ‘mother’ would work. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Franco >>>>> >>>>> Il giorno lun 23 set 2019 alle 11:34 athinak >>>>> <athi...@ics.forth.gr> >>>>> ha scritto: >>>>> Dear Franco, >>>>> >>>>> your comments are very useful and I think you are right, maybe this is >>>>> about a more general concept or we may miss something with the >>>>> definition of E67 Birth(?). And what about the parents? they are >>>>> participants in this biological event? Especially the mother who acts, >>>>> performs intentionally, especially in cases of stillborn, the procedure >>>>> is to start labour. I am concerned with the definition of the birth >>>>> event. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for the feedback >>>>> >>>>> Athina >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Στις 2019-09-23 11:45, Franco Niccolucci έγραψε: >>>>> >>>>>> My suggestion would be to avoid being involved in ethical and >>>>>> religious discussions (when does the ‘person’ start to be such?) >>>>>> and go one step up in the entity hierarchy so: >>>>>> * instead of E21 Person use E20 Biological Object (superclass of E21) >>>>>> qualified with P2 has type >>>>>> * instead of E67 Birth use E5 Event qualified with P2 has type. In my >>>>>> opinion using instead E63 Beginning of existence (superclass of E67) >>>>>> is risky because applying the identity criteria to a fetus is >>>>>> uncertain and subject to ethical discussion, so the only safe solution >>>>>> is to record when it manifests to the world with a birth or >>>>>> miscarriage. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> Franco >>>>>> >>>>>> Il giorno lun 23 set 2019 alle 10:21 athinak >>>>>> <athi...@ics.forth.gr> >>>>>> ha >>>>>> scritto: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am working on a project relating to historical information >>>>>>> (sources) >>>>>>> on Seafaring lives and Maritime Labour in 19th-20th century - we map >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> raw data to CIDOC CRM (or an extension of it). Historians collect >>>>>>> data >>>>>>> from various records, such as Civil Registers, which are records >>>>>>> documenting persons born or dead - basically, they register the >>>>>>> deaths. >>>>>>> So I have this case: they register as persons the miscarriages or >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> stillborn or the abortions, and they assign attributes such as the >>>>>>> number of registration, personal information (name,surname,etc. )of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> parents, the place of residence (which is the parents address, of >>>>>>> course) and the sex of the aborted or still born (something they >>>>>>> knew >>>>>>> afterwards). I suppose this is a difficult ethical and biological >>>>>>> subject- my question is how would you model the miscarriage or the >>>>>>> still >>>>>>> born or the abortion? It is not exactly defined as E21 Person and if >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> is a case of still born, it can be a kind of a E67 Birth Event, but >>>>>>> if >>>>>>> it is a miscarriage, I believe it is not a birth event, it is a >>>>>>> different biological process, so what is it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any thoughts that would help? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Athina Kritsotaki >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> 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: >>>> >>>> mar...@ics.forth.gr >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------ >> 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: >> mar...@ics.forth.gr >> >> 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
