Dear all, Social symbolic events such as acquisitions (not done by force) are also strictly not observable since you can only know that they occur if you share the same social symbolic set and 'conclude' or 'infer' that something has taken place. There is no atomic level at which we see these things and can then say 'and now it is done'! Which atom, at what moment? Of course there are various pieces of evidence you can go looking for and say these are the things you must observe, but it's an obtuse way of looking at things because if you are at the wedding and you are a literate member of the cultural group then you know (barring an evil demon) that when the bride has been kissed (and some books signed) that the event has occured. You 'observed' it.
It is reasonable and natural for how to structure information and how to ask questions to posit an observation acquisition event rather than saying that what is observable is the book, the handshake etc. This is the same with social institutions. No document need be consulted for an alien anthropologist to land amongst CRM SIG discussion and determine who the leader is. Having read a few background documents about general human culture and observing a set of behaviours amongst a group of people the anthropologist 'observes' M Doerr to be the leader. To say that this is not observable is extremely hard to support (except again if we argue only atomic configurations can be observed). What was observed is not necessarily initiating and ending events (also symbolic, also only knowable beyond physical material evidence), but a number of indicators within a social symbolic system which indicated this to be the case. It is thus equally natural to say that the social fact is observed although in fact many minute individual observations were made etc. It would be obtuse to ask for these to be listed instead of the fact in the same way it would be for the event because this is not the form of evidence that is typically required in the domain on inquiry. Francesco points out for the nth time and I'm not sure why this cannot be heard or acknowledge that historians usually do not have the kind of evidence you ask for of physical events in space and time that start social states. The historian is not at fault, the historical record is imperfect. It is in this case not for the historian to change his practice but for the ontologist to provide a structure which relates to the kind of reality that the expert tries to describe. As in observation in the sense of physics, the observer can be wrong. Best, George On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:49 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig < crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > 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), the social 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 07 > > > Publications > <https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/search/index/?qa[auth_t][]=Francesco+Beretta&sort=producedDate_tdate+desc> > Le projet 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– 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 > listCrm-sig@ics.forth.grhttp://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 >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
