Dear all, It seems indeed a great topic for a live discussion and useful that it has been raised. In the meantime, I'm sure there are many other points of view that should be heard. Glad to hear Athina and Dominic's. Look forward to hear other thoughts and to discuss them fully together.
I certainly appreciate that it is key to capture the notion of document / documenting / documentation in the modelling, it's just a question of which is the best way. Best, George On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 12:37 PM athinak <athi...@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > Dear all, > > just a comment: the epistemic nature isn't also confirmed by the > argument that the E31 are also kind of propositions, statements about > real, non fictional things (instances of E89 too)? I understand > George's argument about the dependence on the intentionality to define > such things, but should we consider that part of the identity criteria > of the man made things is the functional use of these objects (resulting > from a human activity) ? > > just a thought, > BRs, > Athina > > On 2025-08-24 21:33, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote: > > Dear Martin, > > > > Thank you for your proposed refinement of E31 Document. I would like > > to share some concerns, as I remain unconvinced that this scope note > > alteration is a useful addition to the CRM. > > > > My unease comes from the fact that E31 seems to be an _epistemic_ > > rather than an _ontological_ category. It feels a little like having > > “hero” or “villain” as subclasses of Person: whether something > > qualifies depends on perspective, not on universally observable > > qualities. This seems at odds with the CRM’s “neutral point of > > view” principle, which I regard as essential for an international > > standard aiming at a reality-based, shared representation. > > > > The new scope note, as I read it, emphasizes the _intention of the > > author_ as the criterion for classification. That is problematic: we > > rarely know the author’s mind, and even if we could, intention is > > not a stable ontological feature. A few examples illustrate the > > difficulties: > > > > * > > > > Samuel George Morton – Crania Americana (1839): a phrenological work > > that strongly influenced scientific racism. Was it “about > > reality”? By intention, yes; by our current understanding, no. > > * > > > > Herbert Risley – The People of India (1908): similarly framed as > > objective classification, but now widely regarded as pseudo-scientific > > and harmful. > > * > > > > The Popol Vuh (16th century): intended as an account of reality, but > > referring to gods and cosmologies not aligned with the CRM’s > > “reality” domain. > > * > > > > Johann Becher – Physica Subterranea (1667): a major work of > > phlogiston theory. Again, intended as truth claims about the world, > > but about entities that (in our episteme) do not exist. > > > > In all these cases, deciding whether they are “documents” requires > > epistemic judgement, not neutral description. Moreover, for some, > > classifying them as “documents about reality” risks forcing > > modellers into positions they may find objectionable. > > > > The cleaner modelling solution already exists: all of these works are > > unambiguously E73 Information Objects. Their treatment as > > “documents” in particular times or contexts can be captured > > through P2 has type or via event-based modelling (e.g., E13 Attribute > > Assignment). This allows us to represent the social fact of “taken > > as documentation” without building epistemic judgements into the > > ontology itself. > > > > In short, I think E31 complicates rather than clarifies. The CRM’s > > strength has always been to stick to the neutral “facts of the > > matter.” For that reason, I would argue against expanding or > > refining E31 and instead rely on the mechanisms we already have. > > > > Best regards, > > > > George > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 2:43 PM Dominic Oldman via Crm-sig > > <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > > > >> Hi Martin, > >> > >> It's got bigger! 🙂 > >> > >> You give a comprehensive description of Documentation. > >> > >> D > >> > >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 at 12:18, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig > >> <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > >> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> Here my reworking, based on Dominic's comments. I prefer a more > >>> verbose form. > >>> > >>> "This class comprises identifiable immaterial items that make > >>> propositions about reality, often called non-fiction. These > >>> propositions may be expressed in text, graphics, images, > >>> audiograms, videograms or by other similar means. > >>> > >>> Typical examples are scientific records and studies, observational > >>> data, realistic portraits, depictions of landscapes or buildings, > >>> log books of ships and many others. Documentation databases are > >>> regarded as instances of E31 Document. This class should not be > >>> confused with the concept “document” in Information Technology > >>> which denotes any kind of digital object (of “file”) and is > >>> compatible with E73 Information Object. > >>> > >>> In general, it is the implicit or explicitly expressed intention > >>> in the creation of the item that justifies the classification as > >>> an instance of E31 Document, which distinguishes it from other > >>> kinds, such as fiction or software, and not its claimed > >>> truthfulness with respect to reality. Deviations with respect to > >>> reality are typically unintended errors or poorly supported > >>> assumptions, but also different cases of bias discussed in the > >>> scientific discourse. It is the task of scientists and scholars to > >>> assess truthfulness of instances of E31 Document. > >>> > >>> Only if the overall seriousness of an information object appears > >>> not to be given, such as the article by Leo Taxil 1890 about the > >>> Freemasonry, the documentalist should decide not to classify an > >>> item as instance of E31 Document. Also, historical novels, such as > >>> “Sinuhe the Egyptian” by Mia Waltari, 1945, which may > >>> incorporate or is inspired by facts are not considered an instance > >>> of document because they are primarily fiction. Fiction consists > >>> of narrative mainly based on imaginary events, people, places, > >>> etc. > >>> > >>> [Leo Taxil wrote in 1890 a farce about the freemasons not intended > >>> to be taken seriously, but getting "viral" as being real despite > >>> of his confirmation that it was a hoax. It is the origin of > >>> conspiracy theories about the . > >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxil_hoax]"; > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Martin > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ------------------------------------ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr > >>> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Crm-sig mailing list > >>> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > >>> http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Crm-sig mailing list > >> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > >> http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list > > _______________________________________________ > > Crm-sig mailing list > > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > > http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://cidoc-crm.org/crm-sig-mailing-list
