Dear Robert,
On 12/15/2022 4:57 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
This doesn't meet the requirements, unfortunately.
To my best understanding, and of others on this list, it has not made
sufficiently clear so far by you which semantics the linguistic
Appellation should comprise. Following our methodology, requirements
must be backed up by representative examples that allow for narrowing
down the senses to be comprised. The do not come from authority.
Most examples provided so far did not demonstrate the independence of
the language specificity of the Appellation from the individual
identified by it, but exactly the opposite. The difference is a matter
of fundamental logic of semantic networks, and cannot be ignored.
Examples must be sufficiently representative for a large set of data.
TGN, for instance, is huge, and domainßinstance specific. VIAF refers to
national libraries, not to languages. "The Big Apple" is a rather rare
case of a complete English noun phrase used as a place name, which
exactly fits the scope note of E41. It could be documented as Title.
Transliteration, you mentioned, does not create a language specificity,
but a script specificity.
Please respect that it belongs to our method to discuss, if the sense of
an original submission actually represents the best semantics fit for
purpose, and to modify it if needed. I simply act here, as any CRM-SIG
member should, as a knowledge engineer based on the examples you and
others provided and try to propose the most adequate solution, and not
to defend any position. I do not have any other project of my own.
Please stay in your answers on the level of arguments based on
representative examples and their interpretation.
sdh:C11 is a temporal entity -- the state of being named something --
and not a name itself. While interesting, as previously States have
been widely decreed as an anti-pattern to be avoided, it does not meet
the requirements set forth for E33_E41, which is that an Appellation
itself can have a Language.
Indeed I may not describe C11 as a State in the sense we discussed it.
It is as timeless as all our properties of persistent items. States are
better avoided if temporal inner bounds are to be given, because they
require complete observation, a sort of Closed World. This is not the
case here. But this distracts from the question to what the language
here pertains.
To repeat, if E33_41 is to enter unmodified CRMbase as you propose, it
needs a scope note and examples that disambiguate scope and senses.
Then, *it must* be differentiated from domain-instance specific use, and
the relevance
of the remaining scope must be argued. All examples must be discussed
and voted for.
Rather than an anonymous "requirement set forth", I definitely would
like to see your examples of use of E33_41 in your applications. Is that
possible? Are you sure they fit the independence from the domain
instance? Are you sure there will be no abuse in the sense I, Francesco
and LRM propose?
Best,
Martin
So I believe that this does not solve the problem as stated - that
E33_E41_Linguistic_Appellation does not have a description outside of
the RDFS document.
Rob
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 3:54 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
<crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
Dear Francesco, dear George,
After the discussion in the last CRM SIG meeting, I propose to
follow Francesco's "sdh:C11 Appellation in a Language
<https://ontome.net/class/365/namespace/3> class." as *a longpath
for P1*.
I propose to generalize the context. It could be a language, it
could be a country, a Group. I propose to analyze, if this can be
mapped or identified with LRM Nomen and its properties. It can
further be made compatible with the RDF labels with a language
tag, which are domain instance specific and not range specific,
and of course can represent the TGN language attributes. For VIAF,
we would need a "national" context, i.e., the national library.
Best,
Martin
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022, 2:43 pm Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig,
<crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
Dear Martin, all
Sorry to intervene so late in this interesting exchange, I
was away for some days and I'm going through my emails now.
I encountered the same questions while working a few years
ago in a history project interested in the evolution of the
use of names and surnames.
The approach of the project was similar to the one presented
by Martin below and amounted to saying that it is difficult
to state to which language a first name, or surname, belongs
in itself, except for some cases or if we consider the region
of origin, but what is relevant is that this specific string
of characters is used at a given time (and attested in the
sources) in a language or in another (i.e. in a society
speaking this language) to identify a person or an object.
To capture the information envisaged in the project in the
sense of this approach I decided to stick to the substance of
crm:E41 Appellation class:
"This class comprises signs, either meaningful or not, or
arrangements of signs following a specific syntax, that are
used or can be used to refer to and identify a specific
instance of some class or category within a certain context.
Instances of E41 Appellation do not identify things by their
meaning, even if they happen to have one, but _instead by
convention, tradition, or agreement_." (CRM 6.2).
and to add in what has become the SDHSS CRM unofficial
extension the sdh:C11 Appellation in a Language
<https://ontome.net/class/365/namespace/3> class.
This class has as you'll see a clear social, i.e. intentional
flavor, and captures the information that some appellation is
considered as a valid appellation of a thing in a language
(i.e. society speaking his language) during an attested
time-span.
This was also an attempt to cope with the frbroo:F52 Name Use
Activity issue:
413 Pursuit and Name Use Activity to CRMsoc
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-413-pursuit-and-name-use-activity-to-crmsoc>
573 CRMsoc & F51 Pursuit & F52 Name Use Activity
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-573-crmsoc-f51-pursuit-f52-name-use-activity>
which is somewhat slowed down by the ongoing exchanges around
the nature and substance of the social world as foundation of
the CRMsoc extension.
But one could easily provide another substance to an
/Appellation in a Language/ class making it a Name Use
Activity (in a Language) class (and subclass of crm:E13
Attribute Assignment
<https://ontome.net/class/13/namespace/1> or crm:E7 Activity).
This would be in my opinion a good way of coping with the
wish expressed by George at the beginning of this exchange to
"make [this kind of classes] full classes in the standard so
that they are fully vetted and controlled. It is a
fundamental class. It should be in the standard in the first
place", wish that I definitely share. And also to stick, as
far as I can understand, to the modelling principles reminded
by Martin.
And it would also finally solve the issues still open, to my
knowledge, concerning the original FRBR-oo class.
Best
Francesco
--
------------------------------------
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
--
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
--
------------------------------------
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
