Dear Francesco,May I object. I maintain that ownership is not observable. All examples you provided are about memories or documents of acquisition, or about those who claim to know those (who know/have known those) who know. The events of acquisition, in whatever form, are the only one that are observable. This does not require a higher conceptual consideration in the first place. Without counterexample, I cannot follow your criticism.
All the best, Martin On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear Athina,Thank you for taking of your time and for making explicit the reasons of your modelling choices and methodology.As University trained historians, we know that the model of the information produced by a project generally depends on the research agenda and the available sources. The model of a project is therefore not an ontology in the sense of a conceptualisation allowing for multi-project interoperability. Even the way of modelling a ship's voyage may change according to the lines of inquiry of different research projects. For this reason, a strict bottom-up modelling methodology in the field of historical research, and more broadly in the social sciences, without foundational analysis, doesn't seem to be the most appropriate way of producing an ontology for the whole portion of reality —a quite relevant portion in the cultural heritage perspective— these disciplines are concerned with.Regarding the ownership of a ship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-owner), which in French is in some contexts referred to under the technical term 'armement' (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armement_(marine) — cf. "registration activity" below), thesocial fact of ownership is as such and in general —in the sense of ontology— observable. One can ask sailors or informed contemporaries and they will know who the owner of the ship is. There are historical sources, for example correspondence, which attest to the role of shipowners (/armateurs/) of such and such a person or company, even if we have lost the shipping registers which state the events of taking ownership.In the Sealit project, a methodological choice or stance was adopted which is certainly legitimate in the project's context, but which one should avoid to generalize stating e.g. that ship ownership is not directly observable, as this would be in contradiction with observable reality. Besides the collective, attested and observable knowledge of ownership, there are, for other subdomains, written statements about it. One has to think of the land registry documents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadastre) which often attest to the social fact of land ownership, or other rights on land, without necessarily knowing where it comes from. These rights are observable and part of reality as evidenced by the recent trials and convictions of climate activists who have occupied and organised unauthorised events at the headquarters of private companies, on the basis of infringement of private property.So should one intend that social bonds, ownership, etc. are —in general and as such— not observable does not seem to be very prudent because the fact of generalising a specific method of modelling whose foundation and epistemological principles have never really been made explicit (in their foundational, philosophical aspects) risks compromising the possibility of adopting such an ontology by entire scientific communities, such as the social sciences, historical sciences, etc., whose objects are precisely related the social facts and immaterial cultural heritage.I am therefore not at all criticizing the modelling choices of the Sealit project, which are entirely legitimate in the context of the project's model. I would simply caution against implicitly accepting foundational and philosophical modelling principles, such as those we are called to vote on —e.g. the reference to "empirical material evidence" in the context of an ontology (the CRM) that "only commits to a unique _material_ reality independent from the observer"— regarding issues that appear to be merely about innocuous wording, and by far are not, and should actually be once explicitly formulated, discussed and accepted.It is in this sense that I understand this question, as well as the one raised in issue 581, to fall under issues 504 and 580.Hoping to have answered your question in this way, with my best regards Francesco ---- Dr. habil. Francesco Beretta Chargé de recherche au CNRS, Chargé d'enseignement à l'Université de Neuchâtel Axe de recherche en histoire numérique, Laboratoire de recherche historique Rhône-Alpes LARHRA UMR CNRS 5190, MSH LSE, 14, Avenue Berthelot 69363 LYON CEDEX 07Publications <https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/search/index/?qa[auth_t][]=Francesco+Beretta&sort=producedDate_tdate+desc> Le projet dataforhistory.org <http://dataforhistory.org/> – Ontology Management Environment OntoME <http://ontome.dataforhistory.org/> Projet "FAIR data" en histoire <http://phn-wiki.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/doku.php?id=fairdata:accueil>L’Axe de recherche en histoire numérique <http://larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/pole-histoire-numerique> du LARHRA Le projet symogih.org <http://symogih.org/>– SPARQL endpoint <http://symogih.org/?q=rdf-publication> Portail de ressources géo-historiques GEO-LARHRA <http://geo-larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/> Portail de ressources textuelles <http://xml-portal.symogih.org/index.html> au format XML Cours Outils numériques pour les sciences historiques <http://phn-wiki.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/doku.php?id=intro_histoire_numerique:accueil> Dépôt GitHub avec documentation des cours et travaux d’étudiant-e-s <https://github.com/Sciences-historiques-numeriques>Le 28.02.22 à 11:25, athinak a écrit :Dear Francesco, dear all,There may be a misunderstanding regarding the class Legal Object Relationship, which I explained in the presentation in the last sig meeting: We defined this class in a sense of a state of ownership of a ship, which is a kind of information that can be inferred (implicit knowledge) and not directly observed – it can be observed by the starting and terminating event of this state. It is like the soc Bond, which describes social/legal relationships that cannot be observed. We strictly follow the modelling principle which refers that we model from actual information sources that reveal actual practice- according to the historians of the sealit project, a ship ownership phase is described as a state with the only information documented to be about the ship owner, the shares that may have and the name of the ship, not the dates of this ownership (which is a quite complex phenomenon to observe since a person e.g may possess up to 1/48 of a ship, so you can understand how many ships shares a single person could have in the same time and there is no documented information on the timespan of this shareholding. Additionally, the ownership is used to assign a name to a ship and a ship changes its name under an ownership state. However, additional temporal information on these names under ownership states is not documented in the source – the Ownership phase can be traced by the ship registration activity (that includes timespan information) that initiates it and by the de-flagging, both events that are documented. This is material evidence, coming from the source. If you open a Loyd catalogue, you will find these information under ship registration without dates on the owners of the ship. Another modeling principle that is represented in our decision to leave Legal Object Relationship as a subclass of E1 CRM Entity is that we support the progressive improvement of classification knowledge by IsA hierarchy. Since we don’t have enough knowledge and we support the open world assumption, which means that new evidence may change the classification, we prefer to model the more general (here we classified under E1) and then, when we have more precise knowledge by instances on the nature of this Legal Ob.Relationship class, then we can progressively specialize and refine the E1 and find the superclass under which Legal Object Relationship fits. Sealit is a model that is based on data input, it can be refined and improved based on new knowledge, new instances. I just wanted to explain this logic under which the model was constructed and to prove that it is one of the most representative documentations from material evidence we had, in our experience. So I am a bit confused how this use case supports raising philosophical questions regarding issue 581.My BRs, Athina On 2022-02-25 12:29, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:Dear Martin, dear Franco, I assume that the same question by Franco (Issue 581) is raised by page 25 ? " What goes on in our minds or is produced by our minds is also regarded as part of the material reality, as it becomes materially evident to other people at least by our utterances, behavior and products. " " priority of integrating information based on material evidence available for whatever human experience." " The CIDOC CRM only commits to a unique material reality independent from the observer." Cf. the new proposition below: " As “available documented and empirical material evidence” are regarded all types of material collected and displayed by museums and related institutions, as defined by ICOM[1], and other collections of things providing evidence about the past, in-situ objects, sites, monuments and intangible heritage relating to fields such as social history, ethnography, archaeology, fine and applied arts, natural history, history of sciences and technology. " It seems to me that these 'fussy' questions raise in fact, once again, the relevant Issue 504 concerning the philosophical underpinnings of CRM. The consequences of this approach are illustrated by the recently published Sealit project ontology, class: Legal Object Relationship (e.g. property of a ship by some actor): "This class comprises legal object relationships of which the timespan and the state (of these relationships) cannot be observed or documented. We can only observe these relationships through the events that initialize or terminate this state of relationship (starting event and terminating event). " I'm not sure how many domain experts would agree with this definition because ownership of things, as a fact, is attested in written texts, or even in minds of living persons and expressed in utterances, and these are empirically observable. The here adopted foundational stance excludes this fact (i.e. property) from being a subclass of E2 Temporal Entity. Legal Object Relationship is declared as subclass of E1 Entity. But on page 33 of the CRM documentation we can read: "The more specific subclasses of E2 Temporal Entity enable the documentation of events pertaining to individually related/affected material, social or mental objects that have been described using subclasses of E77 Persistent Item. " I must therefore admit that a careful reader is somewhat confused and that having an extension, such as CRMsoc, providing additional classes to deal with individual intentional and social life, and dealing with mental and social facts as empirically observable, intentional (collective) facts as we propose, could only be an advantage. This email therefore relates to issues 504 and 580. I'd kindly ask to put it there and add there links to the relevant other issues. All the best Francesco On 14.02.22 20:38, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:Dear All Please vote "YES" for accept, "NO" for not accept: Background Proposal by Franco Niccolucci (9 January 2022) With other colleagues, I am translating into Italian the CIDOC CRM documentation. This forced me to (or if you prefer, it gave me the opportunity of) reading it with great attention to minute details. On page 10 of the Introduction I found a couple of things that may need to be changed: both are in the bottom of the page describing the CRM Intended Scope, where some expressions used in such description are explained in greater detail. 1. In the first bullet point, the term “scientific and scholarly documentation” is explained as compliant to the quality level “expected and required by museum professionals and researchers in the field.” What about archaeologists, architectural historians etc.? I would replace this statement with “expected and required by heritage professionals and researchers in the field.”, which would also expand the “field” beyond museology as implied by the other formulation, which is also contradictory with the much wider ambit listed in the second bullet. 2. In the second bullet point the meaning of the term “available documented and material evidence” is explained. Actually, a different expression was used in the previous text, being clarified here; “available documented and empirical evidence”. When defining a term, I think it is preferable to avoid using different albeit equivalent expressions. Moreover, the equivalence of “empirical” and “material” is debatable: according to my Oxford dictionary empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic material = denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit I may agree with “empirical” but I am not sure I would agree with “material”. As you can see, this is a fussy comment. But the devil is in the details... and in this case a naughty commenter (not my case) might think that both are Freudian slips :) 3. In the third and fourth bullet points, collections are addressed. But the third point considers “cultural heritage collections” and the fourth “museum collections”, actually in the same copy-paste sentence. Is this difference intentional, or again a slip? I imagine in both cases “cultural heritage collections” must be used. ------------------------- PROPOSAL: OLD: SCOPE OF THE CIDOC CRM The overall scope of the CIDOC CRM can be summarised in simple terms as the curated, factual knowledge about the past at a human scale. However, a more detailed and useful definition can be articulated by defining both the Intended Scope, a broad and maximally-inclusive definition of general application principles, and the Practical Scope, which is expressed by the overall scope of a growing reference set of specific, identifiable documentation standards and practices that the CIDOC CRM aims to semantically describe, restricted, always, in its details to the limitations of the Intended Scope. The reasons for this distinctions between Intended and Practical Scope are twofold. Firstly, the CIDOC CRM is developed in a “bottom-up” manner, starting from well-understood, actually and widely used concepts of domain experts, which are disambiguated and gradually generalized as more forms of encoding are encountered. This aims to avoid the misadaptations and vagueness that can sometimes be found in introspection-driven attempts to find overarching concepts for such a wide scope, and provides stability to the generalizations found. Secondly, it is a means to identify and keep a focus on the concepts most needed by the communities working in the scope of the CIDOC CRM and to maintain a well-defined agenda for its evolution. The Intended Scope of the CIDOC CRM may, therefore, be defined as all information required for the exchange and integration of heterogeneous scientific and scholarly documentation about the past at a human scale and the available documented and empirical evidence for this. This definition requires further elaboration: · The term “scientific and scholarly documentation” is intended to convey the requirement that the depth and quality of descriptive information that can be handled by the CIDOC CRM should be sufficient for serious academic research. This does not mean that information intended for presentation to members of the general public is excluded, but rather that the CRM is intended to provide the level of detail and precision expected and required by heritage professionals and researchers in the field. · As “available documented and material evidence” are regarded all types of material collected and displayed by museums and related institutions, as defined by ICOM[1], and other collections, in-situ objects, sites, monuments and intangible heritage relating to fields such as social history, ethnography, archaeology, fine and applied arts, natural history, history of sciences and technology. · The concept “documentation” includes the detailed description of individual items, in situ or within collections, groups of items and collections as a whole, as well as practices of intangible heritage. It pertains to their current state as well as to information about their past. The CIDOC CRM is specifically intended to cover contextual information: the historical, geographical and theoretical background that gives cultural heritage collections much of their cultural significance and value. · The documentation of collections includes the detailed description of individual items within collections, groups of items and collections as a whole. The CIDOC CRM is specifically intended to cover contextual information: the historical, geographical and theoretical background that gives museum collections much of their cultural significance and value. NEW: SCOPE OF THE CIDOC CRM The overall scope of the CIDOC CRM can be summarised in simple terms as the curated, factual knowledge about the past at a human scale. However, a more detailed and useful definition can be articulated by defining both the Intended Scope, a broad and maximally-inclusive definition of general application principles, and the Practical Scope, which is expressed by the overall scope of a growing reference set of specific, identifiable documentation standards and practices that the CIDOC CRM aims to semantically describe, restricted, always, in its details to the limitations of the Intended Scope. The reasons for this distinctions between Intended and Practical Scope are twofold. Firstly, the CIDOC CRM is developed in a “bottom-up” manner, starting from well-understood, actually and widely used concepts of domain experts, which are disambiguated and gradually generalized as more forms of encoding are encountered. This aims to avoid the misadaptations and vagueness that can sometimes be found in introspection-driven attempts to find overarching concepts for such a wide scope, and provides stability to the generalizations found. Secondly, it is a means to identify and keep a focus on the concepts most needed by the communities working in the scope of the CIDOC CRM and to maintain a well-defined agenda for its evolution. The Intended Scope of the CIDOC CRM may, therefore, be defined as all information required for the exchange and integration of heterogeneous scientific and scholarly documentation about the past at a human scale and the available documented and empirical evidence for this. This definition requires further elaboration: · The term “scientific and scholarly documentation” is intended to convey the requirement that the depth and quality of descriptive information that can be handled by the CIDOC CRM should be sufficient for serious academic research. This does not mean that information intended for presentation to members of the general public is excluded, but rather that the CRM is intended to provide the level of detail and precision expected and required by heritage professionals engaged in cultural and scientific heritage and researchers in these fields. · As “available documented and empirical material evidence” are regarded all types of material collected and displayed by museums and related institutions, as defined by ICOM[1], and other collections of things providing evidence about the past, in-situ objects, sites, monuments and intangible heritage relating to fields such as social history, ethnography, archaeology, fine and applied arts, natural history, history of sciences and technology. · The concept “documentation” includes the detailed description of individual items, in situ or within collections, groups of items and collections as a whole, as well as practices of intangible heritage. It pertains to their current state as well as to information about their past. The CIDOC CRM is specifically intended to cover contextual information: the historical, geographical and theoretical background that gives cultural heritage collections much of their cultural significance and value. · Delete the fourth paragraph, it is repeating the third! ------------------------- [1] The ICOM Statutes provide a definition of the term “museum” at http://icom.museum/statutes.html#2 The term “should” is used in the sense of a binding recommendation by the standards. This is what users adhering to the standard have to do. It “should” be consistently used throughout the document. -- ------------------------------------ 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_______________________________________________ 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 DoerrHonorary Head of the
Center for Cultural InformaticsInformation Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,GreeceVox:+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
