Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Martin Doerr]

Dear All,

I would like to stay neutral in this issue. Personally, I do not believe 
that changing language is the way to make sure we respect men and women 
equally and give them equal chances, and it gives me a taste of 
distracting from what should be discussed. Therefore I am not happy 
about it.


I have the impression that even the etymology given in wikipedia 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word) is not complete. As a German 
speaker, I distinguish between "Mann" (male) and "Mensch" (human), and I 
suspect that the English "man" is actually a derivative of both, 
rendering it a homonym.  Homonymity would not imply a bias.


In Italian, French, Spanish the Latin term "vir" for adult male actually 
got lost in favor of derivatives of "homo" (human). Would be interesting 
to learn if this was actually connected with an increasing male 
domination or not, or if being "vir" became unimportant.


Man-Made appeared to me a good, established term, and we prefer 
established terms.


In German, we rendered it as "artificial object".

Asian languages such as Chinese and Japanese do not have default gender 
at all. Much better.

Anyway, if some people think it makes a difference...

Cheers,

Martin

On 4/12/2019 7:38 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


Dear all,

On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose that 
the labels for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and E71 
Man-Made Thing be changed to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“.  
In this day and age, I think we should recognize that inclusion and 
diversity are core features of community acceptance, and that 
including gender-biased language is alienating.


Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made Object, 
E25 changed to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing.


The “human” nature of the agent that does the making is explicit in 
the ontology, in that only humans or groups there-of can be Actors and 
carry out Productions or Creations, so there is no ambiguity about 
non-humans making these.


This issue was discussed at length, and has been open in our profile’s 
tracker for 12 months now. We would greatly prefer that it be solved 
by changing the labels in the documentation, and thereby in the RDFS, 
rather than other RDF specific approaches such as minting new terms 
and using owl:sameAs to assert equality, or rebranding only in the 
JSON-LD serialization but persisting in other serializations.  The 
change is consistent, reduces the length of the class names, and is an 
easy substitution. The comprehensibility of the label is still the 
same. Given the renaming of Collection to Curated Holding, migration 
of existing data has the same solution - just substitute the labels.


As a second choice, if the above is not acceptable, we propose to 
instead replace “Man-“ with “Human-“ … only two additional characters, 
but a bit more of a mouthful.


Many thanks for your engagement with this issue!

Rob


___
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

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Franco Niccolucci]

I don’t want to be invasive of this discussion, just state that also 
deprecation for the sake of deprecation sometimes seems to me an expensive 
attitude, although apparently very fashionable in recent times. We theorists 
often do not take into account the practical implications and the costs related 
to our vagaries, which we believe to address something fundamental that 
probably is not so.

As concerns “artificial", what about "Artificial Intelligence”, currently one 
of the most used buzzwords? Perhaps maliciously we use it, tongue in cheek, 
thinking to its second sense, “insincere” :-)

F.


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 12 apr 2019, alle ore 17:58, Robert Sanderson 
>  ha scritto:
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Franco, Christian, and Pierre,
> 
>  
> 
> I agree that this is a modern and solely political issue limited to the 
> English language. English does not have the stability of (said as a native 
> speaker) better languages, nor the Academies that try to keep social 
> pressures from mutating it ad nauseum.
> 
>  
> 
> That said, those are the properties of the evolution of the language, and in 
> the current stage of that evolution, it is less and less socially acceptable 
> to use gendered terms when non-gendered would suffice. I expect we can all 
> think of other words in our respective mother tongues that started out 
> completely innocuous and have changed meaning to where the usage has been 
> significantly different.
> 
>  
> 
> I agree that there is a technical cost but one that seems less extensive 
> than, for example, deprecating a class or property completely, which happens 
> more often. The trade-off of readability of the terms in RDF compared to the 
> non-linguistic numbers, and the choice of English as a common technical 
> language for that readability, makes this cost unavoidable at times.
> 
>  
> 
> For what it’s worth, we also considered “Artificial” but the second sense 
> (insincere or affected) was cause enough to not propose it.
> 
>  
> 
> Rob
> 
>  
> 
> From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Franco Niccolucci 
> 
> Date: Friday, April 12, 2019 at 8:05 AM
> To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
> Cc: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"
> 
>  
> 
> I (almost) fully agree with Christian-Emil.
> 
>  
> 
> But just “Made” could be a misleading label as per se it would include also 
> the result of a deliberate action by my cat: Made Feature = “scratch made on 
> this precious painting by Agatha (the cat) while sharpening her nails”. 
> Instead the scope note indicates it must be the result of human action.
> 
>  
> 
> As regards the sexist use of “man":
> 
>  
> 
> In Latin “homo” designates any human, the male homo being “vir” versus 
> “mulier”, the female homo: see e.g. “homo sapiens Linn.” and the like.
> 
> This use has remained in Latin languages, even if the word “vir” as 
> substantive was sometimes lost: the word derived from homo in modern 
> languages may indicate a human being, regardless of gender, as well as a male 
> of this species: the generic use is a remnant of Latin, not a sexist 
> attribution.
> 
> This is the current use in Italian.
> 
> I am not sure about Romanian; for French, there is the famous Musée de 
> l’Homme in Paris, which I suspect hosts artefacts concerning both genders. A 
> possible prevalence of Male-Made ones, for the well-known historic reasons, 
> is not why it is called it the “Man Museum".
> 
> The Royal Spanish Academy defines “hombre” as "Ser animado racional, varón o 
> mujer” i.e. “Living rational entity, man (varón) or woman (mujer)”. This 
> language kept the Latin distinction even if in the Tex-Mex language “hombre” 
> is usually referred to males only. Interesting to notice that varón does not 
> derive from vir and was originally a derogatory term, this time attributed to 
> males.
> 
>  
> 
> In conclusion, this is a matter concerning some Anglo-Saxon allergy caused by 
> the semantic poverty of the language. I would let them go their way and 
> choose whatever they like best, man or human; in the meantime, continue 
> translating it with the gender-neutral term we use in our richer languages.
> 
>  
> 
> A label is just a label, so check the implementation cost of the change 
> beforehand: standards are international, not English, so if a bias is 
> perceived by English speakers it is their problem, not mine. Thus out of 
> courtesy I may try to avoid any inconvenience, but I would object paying for 
> the necessary adjustments. On this regard, look at this: 
> https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-04-08.
> 
>  
> 
> Franco
> 
>  
> 
> PS I did not know the American English use of “Made man” as a Mafia member; 
> here we use the term “initiate” for a person inducted into the Mafia.
> 
>  
> 

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Sledge, Jane]

I agree with Robert and Athanasios.  Surely the gender of the maker is recorded 
elsewhere in the CRM and that it does not need to be insinuated as part of E22, 
E25, and E71?  If a distinction is needed between human made and animal made—(a 
bird’s nest for example), is this now recorded elsewhere in the CRM?

Best wishes,
Jane
Associate Director for Collections and Operations, National Museum of the 
American Indian

From: Crm-sig  On Behalf Of Esther Chen
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 9:36 AM
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr; Athanasios Velios ; Pierre 
Choffé ; Florian Kräutli 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"


Dear All,

I absolutely agree with Florian.

All best

Esther
Florian Kräutli  hat am 12. April 2019 um 12:35 
geschrieben:
Dear Pierre and all,

I strongly disagree. This is not about the origins of the word but of its usage 
and meaning in present day. The CRM should reflect (changing) knowledge 
contexts and we as a community should react to and respect developments in the 
world, and not decide based on our personal opinions about them.

I think this should be put up as an issue and I would vote in favour of either 
suggestion: dropping ‘man’ or replacing it with ‘human’.

Best,

Florian




On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:13 PM +0200, "Pierre Choffé" 
mailto:choffepie...@gmail.com>> wrote:
[Image removed by sender.]
Dear all,

This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our times and 
most people (including me) generally avoid getting involved in such discussions 
- especially on social media where you would immediately get drowned in a flood 
of insults - and the result is that we have a feeling of consensus on the 
matter.

Now, we as a community might have a different point of view, starting with the 
knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man" (please consult the wikipedia 
page
 for a brief introduction). Can we please avoid this kind of discussions and 
leave it to Twitter and Facebook ?

Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feeling excluded here 
?)

Have a nice day,
Pierre



On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 11:2 AM, Athanasios Velios  
wrote:

I support the change of the English labels to:

E22 Made Object
E25 Made Feature
E71 Made Thing

And I think this can be proposed as an issue to be voted through the SIG
list.

All the best,

Thanasis


On 12/04/2019 05:38, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose that the
> labels for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and E71 Man-Made
> Thing be changed to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“. In this day
> and age, I think we should recognize that inclusion and diversity are
> core features of community acceptance, and that including gender-biased
> language is alienating.
>
> Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made Object, E25
> changed to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing.
>
> The “human” nature of the agent that does the making is explicit in the
> ontology, in that only humans or groups there-of can be Actors and carry
> out Productions or Creations, so there is no ambiguity about non-humans
> making these.
>
> This issue was discussed at length, and has been open in our profile’s
> tracker for 12 months now. We would greatly prefer that it be solved by
> changing the labels in the documentation, and thereby in the RDFS,
> rather than other RDF specific approaches such as minting new terms and
> using owl:sameAs to assert equality, or rebranding only in the JSON-LD
> serialization but persisting in other serializations. The change is
> consistent, reduces the length of the class names, and is an easy
> substitution. The comprehensibility of the label is still the same.
> Given the renaming of Collection to Curated Holding, migration of
> existing data has the same solution - just substitute the labels.
>
> As a second choice, if the above is not acceptable, we propose to
> instead replace “Man-“ with “Human-“ … only two additional characters,
> but a bit more of a mouthful.
>
> Many thanks for your engagement with this issue!
>
> Rob
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
This email and any attachments are intended solely for

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Robert Sanderson]

Hi Franco, Christian, and Pierre,

I agree that this is a modern and solely political issue limited to the English 
language. English does not have the stability of (said as a native speaker) 
better languages, nor the Academies that try to keep social pressures from 
mutating it ad nauseum.

That said, those are the properties of the evolution of the language, and in 
the current stage of that evolution, it is less and less socially acceptable to 
use gendered terms when non-gendered would suffice. I expect we can all think 
of other words in our respective mother tongues that started out completely 
innocuous and have changed meaning to where the usage has been significantly 
different.

I agree that there is a technical cost but one that seems less extensive than, 
for example, deprecating a class or property completely, which happens more 
often. The trade-off of readability of the terms in RDF compared to the 
non-linguistic numbers, and the choice of English as a common technical 
language for that readability, makes this cost unavoidable at times.

For what it’s worth, we also considered “Artificial” but the second sense 
(insincere or affected) was cause enough to not propose it.

Rob

From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Franco Niccolucci 

Date: Friday, April 12, 2019 at 8:05 AM
To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
Cc: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

I (almost) fully agree with Christian-Emil.

But just “Made” could be a misleading label as per se it would include also the 
result of a deliberate action by my cat: Made Feature = “scratch made on this 
precious painting by Agatha (the cat) while sharpening her nails”. Instead the 
scope note indicates it must be the result of human action.

As regards the sexist use of “man":

In Latin “homo” designates any human, the male homo being “vir” versus 
“mulier”, the female homo: see e.g. “homo sapiens Linn.” and the like.
This use has remained in Latin languages, even if the word “vir” as substantive 
was sometimes lost: the word derived from homo in modern languages may indicate 
a human being, regardless of gender, as well as a male of this species: the 
generic use is a remnant of Latin, not a sexist attribution.
This is the current use in Italian.
I am not sure about Romanian; for French, there is the famous Musée de l’Homme 
in Paris, which I suspect hosts artefacts concerning both genders. A possible 
prevalence of Male-Made ones, for the well-known historic reasons, is not why 
it is called it the “Man Museum".
The Royal Spanish Academy defines “hombre” as "Ser animado racional, varón o 
mujer” i.e. “Living rational entity, man (varón) or woman (mujer)”. This 
language kept the Latin distinction even if in the Tex-Mex language “hombre” is 
usually referred to males only. Interesting to notice that varón does not 
derive from vir and was originally a derogatory term, this time attributed to 
males.

In conclusion, this is a matter concerning some Anglo-Saxon allergy caused by 
the semantic poverty of the language. I would let them go their way and choose 
whatever they like best, man or human; in the meantime, continue translating it 
with the gender-neutral term we use in our richer languages.

A label is just a label, so check the implementation cost of the change 
beforehand: standards are international, not English, so if a bias is perceived 
by English speakers it is their problem, not mine. Thus out of courtesy I may 
try to avoid any inconvenience, but I would object paying for the necessary 
adjustments. On this regard, look at this: https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-04-08.

Franco

PS I did not know the American English use of “Made man” as a Mafia member; 
here we use the term “initiate” for a person inducted into the Mafia.


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 12 apr 2019, alle ore 15:14, Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
mailto:c.e.s@iln.uio.no>> ha scritto:
​Aas Øyvind points out, the debate is the result of a deficite of The English 
language. In Swedish for example, the word for 'human' has femine gender.
I have no problem with man-made -> made as long as 'made' is not too wide and 
include object not made by humans. I checked OED adn it seems ok. But, please 
check this with somebody with somebody with the right Englsih  language 
expertice. It is not allways so that the natives know their language in this 
respect.
Best,
Christian-Emil
OED
made, adj.
View as: Outline |Full entryKeywords: On |OffQuotations: Show all |Hide all
Pronunciation:  Brit. /meɪd/,  U.S. /meɪd/
Forms:  see make v.1
Frequency (in current use):
Origin: Formed within English, by conversion. Etymons: English made  , make v.1
Etymology: < made, past participle of make v.1
  I. Produced or obtained by making as distinguished 

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Achille Felicetti]

Dear all,

I fully agree with Franco. 

Just a quick remark from the Linguistic world: in order not to run into 
incorrect analysis of linguistic facts it is always good to keep in mind that 
the grammatical coding of a language does not reflect the cognitive perception 
or the cultural and moral judgment of the society/ies that speak(s) this 
language.

The Germans do not believe that women are things just because “Weib" is a 
neutral noun rather than a feminine one.

It would therefore be appropriate to keep the linguistic facts (as well as the 
CIDOC CRM label) sheltered from the cultural facts of our world. But, if the 
issue is to avoid the opinions of speakers on their own language, why do we not 
replace English with Latin? This would definitely solve the problem :-)

Best regards,
Achille (& Francesca)


> Il giorno 12 apr 2019, alle ore 17:05, Franco Niccolucci 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> I (almost) fully agree with Christian-Emil. 
> 
> But just “Made” could be a misleading label as per se it would include also 
> the result of a deliberate action by my cat: Made Feature = “scratch made on 
> this precious painting by Agatha (the cat) while sharpening her nails”. 
> Instead the scope note indicates it must be the result of human action.
> 
> As regards the sexist use of “man":
> 
> In Latin “homo” designates any human, the male homo being “vir” versus 
> “mulier”, the female homo: see e.g. “homo sapiens Linn.” and the like.
> This use has remained in Latin languages, even if the word “vir” as 
> substantive was sometimes lost: the word derived from homo in modern 
> languages may indicate a human being, regardless of gender, as well as a male 
> of this species: the generic use is a remnant of Latin, not a sexist 
> attribution. 
> This is the current use in Italian. 
> I am not sure about Romanian; for French, there is the famous Musée de 
> l’Homme in Paris, which I suspect hosts artefacts concerning both genders. A 
> possible prevalence of Male-Made ones, for the well-known historic reasons, 
> is not why it is called it the “Man Museum". 
> The Royal Spanish Academy defines “hombre” as "Ser animado racional, varón o 
> mujer” i.e. “Living rational entity, man (varón) or woman (mujer)”. This 
> language kept the Latin distinction even if in the Tex-Mex language “hombre” 
> is usually referred to males only. Interesting to notice that varón does not 
> derive from vir and was originally a derogatory term, this time attributed to 
> males.
> 
> In conclusion, this is a matter concerning some Anglo-Saxon allergy caused by 
> the semantic poverty of the language. I would let them go their way and 
> choose whatever they like best, man or human; in the meantime, continue 
> translating it with the gender-neutral term we use in our richer languages. 
> 
> A label is just a label, so check the implementation cost of the change 
> beforehand: standards are international, not English, so if a bias is 
> perceived by English speakers it is their problem, not mine. Thus out of 
> courtesy I may try to avoid any inconvenience, but I would object paying for 
> the necessary adjustments. On this regard, look at this: 
> https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-04-08.
> 
> Franco
> 
> PS I did not know the American English use of “Made man” as a Mafia member; 
> here we use the term “initiate” for a person inducted into the Mafia. 
> 
> 
> 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 12 apr 2019, alle ore 15:14, Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
>>  ha scritto:
>> 
>> ​Aas Øyvind points out, the debate is the result of a deficite of The 
>> English language. In Swedish for example, the word for 'human' has femine 
>> gender. 
>> 
>> I have no problem with man-made -> made as long as 'made' is not too wide 
>> and include object not made by humans. I checked OED adn it seems ok. But, 
>> please check this with somebody with somebody with the right Englsih  
>> language expertice. It is not allways so that the natives know their 
>> language in this respect.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Christian-Emil
>> 
>> OED
>> 
>> made, adj.
>> View as: Outline |Full entryKeywords: On |OffQuotations: Show all |Hide all
>> Pronunciation:  Brit. /meɪd/,  U.S. /meɪd/
>> Forms:  see make v.1
>> Frequency (in current use):  
>> Origin: Formed within English, by conversion. Etymons: English made  , make 
>> v.1
>> Etymology: < made, past participle of make v.1
>> I. Produced or obtained by making as distinguished in some way from other 
>> modes of origin or acquisition.
>> Thesaurus »
>> Categories »
>> 
>> †1. Of a story: invented, fictitious. Of a word: invented, coined. Of an 
>> errand: invented for a pretext; made-up. Obsolete.
>> a1387—1843(Show quotations)
>> 
>> 
>> 2.
>> Thesaurus »
>> Categories »
>> 
>> a. Chiefly Scottish in early use. That

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Pierre Choffé]

Dear all,

I totally agree with Franco's analysis and so let it be, since we are talking 
about a deficit of The English language as pointed out by Øyvind. Beware 
though, this is just the beginning, next step might be renaming anything that 
has to do with patri mony, and so on and so forth.
Yes Franco, Musée de l'Homme is a good target, according to estimates we should 
find a compromise with Musée de Tout.e.s (the trendy inclusive Newspeak).

Have a nice week end!

Pierre

On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 1:45 PM, George Bruseker  
wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I think there is a distinction to be made in the question of whether the
> language is in fact biased and whether it is perceived as biased. While
> I would agree with Pierre that there are arguments to be made that it is
> not in fact exclusive language in principle (and valid counterarguments
> to be sure), it is in fact taken by many as being biased and exclusive.
> This in itself makes it exclusive and this is unnecessary and unwanted.
> 
> Since a label in the ontology is just a label, and our intention with
> the label in this case is to give a heuristic to the ontology user in
> order to point towards non-naturally generated objects (man made object
> as we have said to now), I think that dropping 'man' from 'man made',
> does not impede this functionality.
> 
> Removing this part of the label, however, can remove an unintended
> impression of gender bias. This seems to be a functional gain that is
> compatible with the spirit of CIDOC CRM (view neutral by nature).
> 
> Between 'made' and 'human made', I would lean to the latter. 'Made
> Object' is already at the limit of understandability in English (it also
> has some unintended connotations of Mafia language). I think maybe
> 'human made', while sounding awkward in present day English, may be the
> direction that everyday language will go anyhow. 'Humankind' sounds very
> natural and more inclusive than 'mankind' certainly. The adjectival form
> will also follow.
> 
> Another concern is how problematic would the translation be. Checking
> the translations I could find, I did not find a major problem, but it is
> something to take into consideration.
> 
> A serious technical and cost concern for users of CRM would be that
> existing data encoded with the old URIs will now be incompatible with
> this new label. That is a significant trade off.
> 
> Finally, there is another class (E24) that includes man made. Added
> below.
> 
> E22 Ανθρωπογενές Αντικείμενο
> E24 Ανθρωπογενές Υλικό Πράγμα
> E25 Ανθρωπογενές Μόρφωμα
> E71 Ανθρωπογενές Δημιούργημα
> 
> E22-人造物件 (Man-Made Object)
> E24-人造实体物 (Physical Man-Made Thing)
> E25-人造外貌表征 (Man-Made Feature)
> E71-人造物 （Man-Made Thing）
> 
> 
> E71 Künstliches
> E22 Künstlicher Gegenstand
> E24 Hergestelltes
> E25 Hergestelltes Merkmal
> 
> I, in any case, think it is probably worth making the change -unless the
> costs to users in real terms is exorbitant - since the existing label
> can be perceived to be biased and this is wholly unintended by the
> community which aims to be both neutral and inclusive.
> 
> Best,
> 
> George
> 
> 
> 
> On 2019-04-12 14:23, Dominic Oldman wrote:
> > I strongly agree with Florian.
> >
> > It is simply right to make these changes.
> >
> > D
> >
> > -
> >
> > FROM: Crm-sig < crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr > on behalf of Florian
> > Kräutli < fkraeu...@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de >
> > SENT: 12 April 2019 11:35
> > TO: Pierre Choffé; Athanasios Velios; crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> > SUBJECT: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove
> > "Man-"
> >
> > Dear Pierre and all,
> >
> > I strongly disagree. This is not about the origins of the word but of
> > its usage and meaning in present day. The CRM should reflect
> > (changing) knowledge contexts and we as a community should react to
> > and respect developments in the world, and not decide based on our
> > personal opinions about them.
> >
> > I think this should be put up as an issue and I would vote in favour
> > of either suggestion: dropping ‘man’ or replacing it with
> > ‘human’.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Florian
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:13 PM +0200, "Pierre Choffé"
> > < choffepie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our
> >> times and most people (including me) generally avoid getting
> >> involved in such discussions - especially on social media where you
> >> would immediately get drowned in a flood of insults - and the result
> >> is that we have a feeling of consensus on the matter.
> >>
> >> Now, we as a community might have a different point of view,
> >> starting with the knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man"
> >> (please consult the wikipedia page [2] for a brief introduction).
> >> Can we please avoid this kind of discussions and leave it to Twitter
> >> and Facebook ?
> >>
> >> Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feelin

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Franco Niccolucci]

I (almost) fully agree with Christian-Emil. 

But just “Made” could be a misleading label as per se it would include also the 
result of a deliberate action by my cat: Made Feature = “scratch made on this 
precious painting by Agatha (the cat) while sharpening her nails”. Instead the 
scope note indicates it must be the result of human action.

As regards the sexist use of “man":

In Latin “homo” designates any human, the male homo being “vir” versus 
“mulier”, the female homo: see e.g. “homo sapiens Linn.” and the like.
This use has remained in Latin languages, even if the word “vir” as substantive 
was sometimes lost: the word derived from homo in modern languages may indicate 
a human being, regardless of gender, as well as a male of this species: the 
generic use is a remnant of Latin, not a sexist attribution. 
This is the current use in Italian. 
I am not sure about Romanian; for French, there is the famous Musée de l’Homme 
in Paris, which I suspect hosts artefacts concerning both genders. A possible 
prevalence of Male-Made ones, for the well-known historic reasons, is not why 
it is called it the “Man Museum". 
The Royal Spanish Academy defines “hombre” as "Ser animado racional, varón o 
mujer” i.e. “Living rational entity, man (varón) or woman (mujer)”. This 
language kept the Latin distinction even if in the Tex-Mex language “hombre” is 
usually referred to males only. Interesting to notice that varón does not 
derive from vir and was originally a derogatory term, this time attributed to 
males.

In conclusion, this is a matter concerning some Anglo-Saxon allergy caused by 
the semantic poverty of the language. I would let them go their way and choose 
whatever they like best, man or human; in the meantime, continue translating it 
with the gender-neutral term we use in our richer languages. 

A label is just a label, so check the implementation cost of the change 
beforehand: standards are international, not English, so if a bias is perceived 
by English speakers it is their problem, not mine. Thus out of courtesy I may 
try to avoid any inconvenience, but I would object paying for the necessary 
adjustments. On this regard, look at this: https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-04-08.

Franco

PS I did not know the American English use of “Made man” as a Mafia member; 
here we use the term “initiate” for a person inducted into the Mafia. 


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 12 apr 2019, alle ore 15:14, Christian-Emil Smith Ore 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> ​Aas Øyvind points out, the debate is the result of a deficite of The English 
> language. In Swedish for example, the word for 'human' has femine gender. 
> 
> I have no problem with man-made -> made as long as 'made' is not too wide and 
> include object not made by humans. I checked OED adn it seems ok. But, please 
> check this with somebody with somebody with the right Englsih  language 
> expertice. It is not allways so that the natives know their language in this 
> respect.
> 
> Best,
> Christian-Emil
> 
> OED
> 
> made, adj.
> View as: Outline |Full entryKeywords: On |OffQuotations: Show all |Hide all
> Pronunciation:  Brit. /meɪd/,  U.S. /meɪd/
> Forms:  see make v.1
> Frequency (in current use):  
> Origin: Formed within English, by conversion. Etymons: English made  , make 
> v.1
> Etymology: < made, past participle of make v.1
>  I. Produced or obtained by making as distinguished in some way from other 
> modes of origin or acquisition.
> Thesaurus »
> Categories »
>  
> †1. Of a story: invented, fictitious. Of a word: invented, coined. Of an 
> errand: invented for a pretext; made-up. Obsolete.
> a1387—1843(Show quotations)
> 
>  
>  2.
> Thesaurus »
> Categories »
>  
>  a. Chiefly Scottish in early use. That has undergone a process of 
> manufacture. Formerly also (occasionally): †prepared for use (cf. senses of 
> make v.1) (obsolete).
> 1428—1966(Show quotations)
> 
>  
>  
>  b. spec. Of land, earth, etc.: resulting from human activity; constructed; 
> reclaimed. Later also applied to roads, watercourses, etc. Occasionally also, 
> of ground: composed (in part) of recently accumulated material (see quot. 
> 1871).
> 1597—1981(Show quotations)
> 
>  
>  3.
> Thesaurus »
> Categories »
>  
>  a. Chiefly Cookery. Concocted from ingredients or constituents; esp. in   
> made dish n. a dish composed of several ingredients.
>   made gravy n. a gravy artificially compounded, as opposed to one consisting 
> only of the juices obtained during cooking.
> 1559—1995(Show quotations)
> 
>  
> Thesaurus »
> Categories »
>  
>  b. Of an alcoholic beverage, usually wine: home-made or locally made, in 
> contradistinction to those obtained from a distance. Chiefly in made wine. In 
> the United Kingdom sometimes spec. (see quot. 1889).
> 1747—1980(Show quotatio

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Esther Chen]

Dear All,

I absolutely agree with Florian.

All best

Esther

> Florian Kräutli  hat am 12. April 2019 um 
> 12:35 geschrieben:
> 
> Dear Pierre and all,
> 
> I strongly disagree. This is not about the origins of the word but of its 
> usage and meaning in present day. The CRM should reflect (changing) knowledge 
> contexts and we as a community should react to and respect developments in 
> the world, and not decide based on our personal opinions about them.
> 
> I think this should be put up as an issue and I would vote in favour of 
> either suggestion: dropping ‘man’ or replacing it with ‘human’.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Florian
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:13 PM +0200, "Pierre Choffé" 
> mailto:choffepie...@gmail.com > wrote:
> 
> 
> > > Dear all,
> > 
> > This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our 
> > times and most people (including me) generally avoid getting involved in 
> > such discussions - especially on social media where you would immediately 
> > get drowned in a flood of insults - and the result is that we have a 
> > feeling of consensus on the matter.
> > 
> > Now, we as a community might have a different point of view, 
> > starting with the knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man" (please 
> > consult the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word) for a 
> > brief introduction). Can we please avoid this kind of discussions and leave 
> > it to Twitter and Facebook ?
> > 
> > Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feeling 
> > excluded here ?)
> > 
> > Have a nice day,
> > Pierre
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 11:2 AM, Athanasios Velios 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 
> > > I support the change of the English labels to:
> > > 
> > > E22 Made Object
> > > E25 Made Feature
> > > E71 Made Thing
> > > 
> > > And I think this can be proposed as an issue to be voted 
> > > through the SIG
> > > list.
> > > 
> > > All the best,
> > > 
> > > Thanasis
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 12/04/2019 05:38, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to 
> > > propose that the
> > > > labels for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and 
> > > E71 Man-Made
> > > > Thing be changed to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“. 
> > > In this day
> > > > and age, I think we should recognize that inclusion and 
> > > diversity are
> > > > core features of community acceptance, and that including 
> > > gender-biased
> > > > language is alienating.
> > > >
> > > > Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made 
> > > Object, E25
> > > > changed to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing.
> > > >
> > > > The “human” nature of the agent that does the making is 
> > > explicit in the
> > > > ontology, in that only humans or groups there-of can be 
> > > Actors and carry
> > > > out Productions or Creations, so there is no ambiguity 
> > > about non-humans
> > > > making these.
> > > >
> > > > This issue was discussed at length, and has been open in 
> > > our profile’s
> > > > tracker for 12 months now. We would greatly prefer that it 
> > > be solved by
> > > > changing the labels in the documentation, and thereby in 
> > > the RDFS,
> > > > rather than other RDF specific approaches such as minting 
> > > new terms and
> > > > using owl:sameAs to assert equality, or rebranding only in 
> > > the JSON-LD
> > > > serialization but persisting in other serializations. The 
> > > change is
> > > > consistent, reduces the length of the class names, and is 
> > > an easy
> > > > substitution. The comprehensibility of the label is still 
> > > the same.
> > > > Given the renaming of Collection to Curated Holding, 
> > > migration of
> > > > existing data has the same solution - just substitute the 
> > > labels.
> > > >
> > > > As a second choice, if the above is not acceptable, we 
> > > propose to
> > > > instead replace “Man-“ with “Human-“ … only two additional 
> > > characters,
> > > > but a bit more of a mouthful.
> > > >
> > > > Many thanks for your engagement with this issue!
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Crm-sig mailing list
> > > > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> > >

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Christian-Emil Smith Ore]

​Aas Øyvind points out, the debate is the result of a deficite of The English 
language. In Swedish for example, the word for 'human' has femine gender.


I have no problem with man-made -> made as long as 'made' is not too wide and 
include object not made by humans. I checked OED adn it seems ok. But, please 
check this with somebody with somebody with the right Englsih  language 
expertice. It is not allways so that the natives know their language in this 
respect.


Best,

Christian-Emil


OED


made, adj.
View as: Outline |Full entryKeywords: On |OffQuotations: Show all |Hide all
Pronunciation:  Brit. /meɪd/,  U.S. /meɪd/
Forms:  see make v.1
Frequency (in current use):
Origin: Formed within English, by conversion. Etymons: English made  , make v.1
Etymology: < made, past participle of make v.1
 I. Produced or obtained by making as distinguished in some way from other 
modes of origin or acquisition.
Thesaurus »
Categories »

†1. Of a story: invented, fictitious. Of a word: invented, coined. Of an 
errand: invented for a pretext; made-up. Obsolete.
a1387—1843(Show quotations)


 2.
Thesaurus »
Categories »

 a. Chiefly Scottish in early use. That has undergone a process of manufacture. 
Formerly also (occasionally): †prepared for use (cf. senses of make v.1) 
(obsolete).
1428—1966(Show quotations)



 b. spec. Of land, earth, etc.: resulting from human activity; constructed; 
reclaimed. Later also applied to roads, watercourses, etc. Occasionally also, 
of ground: composed (in part) of recently accumulated material (see quot. 1871).
1597—1981(Show quotations)


 3.
Thesaurus »
Categories »

 a. Chiefly Cookery. Concocted from ingredients or constituents; esp. in   made 
dish n. a dish composed of several ingredients.
  made gravy n. a gravy artificially compounded, as opposed to one consisting 
only of the juices obtained during cooking.
1559—1995(Show quotations)


Thesaurus »
Categories »

 b. Of an alcoholic beverage, usually wine: home-made or locally made, in 
contradistinction to those obtained from a distance. Chiefly in made wine. In 
the United Kingdom sometimes spec. (see quot. 1889).
1747—1980(Show quotations)


Categories »

†c. Banking. Of a bill: drawn in one country and payable or negotiated in 
another (see quots.). Obsolete.
1868—1868(Show quotations)


Thesaurus »

 4. gen. Artificial; brought about by contrivance, arranged; that has not come 
about or developed naturally.
1580—1987(Show quotations)


 II. Of which the making has taken place.
 5. Of a hawk, horse, hound, etc.: fully trained.
1474—1987(Show quotations)

 6.

 a. Of a person: having his or her success in life (happiness, etc.) assured. 
Chiefly in a made man.
a1516—1992(Show quotations)


 b. slang (orig. U.S.). Esp. in made man: designating a person who has been 
formally inducted as a full member of the Mafia.
1973—1992(Show quotations)
**
man-made, adj. and n.
View as: Outline |Full entryKeywords: On |OffQuotations: Show all |Hide all
Pronunciation:  Brit. /ˌmanˈmeɪd/,  U.S. /ˈˌmænˈˌmeɪd/
Forms:  16– man-made, 19– man made, 19– manmade.
Frequency (in current use):
Origin: Formed within English, by compounding. Etymons: man n.1, made adj.
Etymology: < man n.1 + made adj (Show More)
 A. adj.
 1.
Categories »

 a. Made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made 
naturally); arising from human activity; artificial. Also figurative. rare 
before 19th cent.
1615—1994(Show quotations)


Thesaurus »
Categories »

 b. spec. Of a fibre: manufactured from regenerated or synthetic polymer. Of a 
fabric: made or consisting of such fibre.
1950—1990(Show quotations)


Thesaurus »

†2. Of a church minister: appointed by humans as opposed to God. Obsolete.
In quot. a1742   as men-made.
a1718—a1742(Show quotations)


 B. n.
Thesaurus »
Categories »

  A man-made fibre or fabric.
1968—1985(Show quotations)

​






From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Øyvind Eide 

Sent: 12 April 2019 14:30
To: George Bruseker
Cc: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

Dear all,

I support the change and would also like to point out that this is a local 
problem with the English language. For instance, in most other Germanic 
languages the distinction is clear, such as in German: Mann / Mensch or in 
Scandinavian where we have various versions of mann / menneske.

As for the specific label to be chosen, I leave that for the native English 
speakers.

All the best,

Øyvind

Am 12.04.2019 um 13:45 schrieb George Bruseker 
mailto:bruse...@ics.forth.gr>>:

Dear all,

I think there is a distinction to be made in the question of whether the 
language is in fact biased and whether it is perceived as biased. While I would 
agree with Pierre that there are arguments to be made that it is not in fact 
exclusive language in principle (and valid counterarguments to be sure), it is 
in fact taken by many as being biased and 

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Øyvind Eide]

Dear all,

I support the change and would also like to point out that this is a local 
problem with the English language. For instance, in most other Germanic 
languages the distinction is clear, such as in German: Mann / Mensch or in 
Scandinavian where we have various versions of mann / menneske.

As for the specific label to be chosen, I leave that for the native English 
speakers. 

All the best,

Øyvind

> Am 12.04.2019 um 13:45 schrieb George Bruseker :
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I think there is a distinction to be made in the question of whether the 
> language is in fact biased and whether it is perceived as biased. While I 
> would agree with Pierre that there are arguments to be made that it is not in 
> fact exclusive language in principle (and valid counterarguments to be sure), 
> it is in fact taken by many as being biased and exclusive. This in itself 
> makes it exclusive and this is unnecessary and unwanted.
> 
> Since a label in the ontology is just a label, and our intention with the 
> label in this case is to give a heuristic to the ontology user in order to 
> point towards non-naturally generated objects (man made object as we have 
> said to now), I think that dropping 'man' from 'man made', does not impede 
> this functionality.
> 
> Removing this part of the label, however, can remove an unintended impression 
> of gender bias. This seems to be a functional gain that is compatible with 
> the spirit of CIDOC CRM (view neutral by nature).
> 
> Between 'made' and 'human made', I would lean to the latter. 'Made Object' is 
> already at the limit of understandability in English (it also has some 
> unintended connotations of Mafia language). I think maybe 'human made', while 
> sounding awkward in present day English, may be the direction that everyday 
> language will go anyhow. 'Humankind' sounds very natural and more inclusive 
> than 'mankind' certainly. The adjectival form will also follow.
> 
> Another concern is how problematic would the translation be. Checking the 
> translations I could find, I did not find a major problem, but it is 
> something to take into consideration.
> 
> A serious technical and cost concern for users of CRM would be that existing 
> data encoded with the old URIs will now be incompatible with this new label. 
> That is a significant trade off.
> 
> Finally, there is another class (E24) that includes man made. Added below.
> 
> E22 Ανθρωπογενές Αντικείμενο
> E24 Ανθρωπογενές Υλικό Πράγμα
> E25 Ανθρωπογενές Μόρφωμα
> E71 Ανθρωπογενές Δημιούργημα
> 
> E22-人造物件 (Man-Made Object)
> E24-人造实体物 (Physical Man-Made Thing)
> E25-人造外貌表征 (Man-Made Feature)
> E71-人造物 （Man-Made Thing）
> 
> 
> E71 Künstliches
> E22 Künstlicher Gegenstand
> E24 Hergestelltes
> E25 Hergestelltes Merkmal
> 
> I, in any case, think it is probably worth making the change -unless the 
> costs to users in real terms is exorbitant - since the existing label can be 
> perceived to be biased and this is wholly unintended by the community which 
> aims to be both neutral and inclusive.
> 
> Best,
> 
> George
> 
> On 2019-04-12 14:23, Dominic Oldman wrote:
>> I strongly agree with Florian.
>> It is simply right to make these changes.
>> D
>> -
>> FROM: Crm-sig  on behalf of Florian
>> Kräutli 
>> SENT: 12 April 2019 11:35
>> TO: Pierre Choffé; Athanasios Velios; crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
>> SUBJECT: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove
>> "Man-"
>> Dear Pierre and all,
>> I strongly disagree. This is not about the origins of the word but of
>> its usage and meaning in present day. The CRM should reflect
>> (changing) knowledge contexts and we as a community should react to
>> and respect developments in the world, and not decide based on our
>> personal opinions about them.
>> I think this should be put up as an issue and I would vote in favour
>> of either suggestion: dropping ‘man’ or replacing it with
>> ‘human’.
>> Best,
>> Florian
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:13 PM +0200, "Pierre Choffé"
>>  wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our
>>> times and most people (including me) generally avoid getting
>>> involved in such discussions - especially on social media where you
>>> would immediately get drowned in a flood of insults - and the result
>>> is that we have a feeling of consensus on the matter.
>>> Now, we as a community might have a different point of view,
>>> starting with the knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man"
>>> (please consult the wikipedia page [2] for a brief introduction).
>>> Can we please avoid this kind of discussions and leave it to Twitter
>>> and Facebook ?
>>> Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feeling
>>> excluded here ?)
>>> Have a nice day,
>>> Pierre
>>> On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 11:2 AM, Athanasios Velios
>>> mailto:a.vel...@arts.ac.uk>> wrote:
 I support the change of the English labels to:
 E22 Made Object
 E25 Made Feature
 E71 

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Richard Light]

A serious technical and cost concern for users of CRM would be that existing 
data encoded with the old URIs will now be incompatible with this new label. 
That is a significant trade off.
Ah, but if we had id-only URIs it wouldn't be an issue.  Just sayin' ...

Richard

On 12/04/2019 12:45, George Bruseker wrote:
Dear all,

I think there is a distinction to be made in the question of whether the 
language is in fact biased and whether it is perceived as biased. While I would 
agree with Pierre that there are arguments to be made that it is not in fact 
exclusive language in principle (and valid counterarguments to be sure), it is 
in fact taken by many as being biased and exclusive. This in itself makes it 
exclusive and this is unnecessary and unwanted.

Since a label in the ontology is just a label, and our intention with the label 
in this case is to give a heuristic to the ontology user in order to point 
towards non-naturally generated objects (man made object as we have said to 
now), I think that dropping 'man' from 'man made', does not impede this 
functionality.

Removing this part of the label, however, can remove an unintended impression 
of gender bias. This seems to be a functional gain that is compatible with the 
spirit of CIDOC CRM (view neutral by nature).

Between 'made' and 'human made', I would lean to the latter. 'Made Object' is 
already at the limit of understandability in English (it also has some 
unintended connotations of Mafia language). I think maybe 'human made', while 
sounding awkward in present day English, may be the direction that everyday 
language will go anyhow. 'Humankind' sounds very natural and more inclusive 
than 'mankind' certainly. The adjectival form will also follow.

Another concern is how problematic would the translation be. Checking the 
translations I could find, I did not find a major problem, but it is something 
to take into consideration.

A serious technical and cost concern for users of CRM would be that existing 
data encoded with the old URIs will now be incompatible with this new label. 
That is a significant trade off.

Finally, there is another class (E24) that includes man made. Added below.

E22 Ανθρωπογενές Αντικείμενο
E24 Ανθρωπογενές Υλικό Πράγμα
E25 Ανθρωπογενές Μόρφωμα
E71 Ανθρωπογενές Δημιούργημα

E22-人造物件 (Man-Made Object)
E24-人造实体物 (Physical Man-Made Thing)
E25-人造外貌表征 (Man-Made Feature)
E71-人造物 （Man-Made Thing）


E71 Künstliches
E22 Künstlicher Gegenstand
E24 Hergestelltes
E25 Hergestelltes Merkmal

I, in any case, think it is probably worth making the change -unless the costs 
to users in real terms is exorbitant - since the existing label can be 
perceived to be biased and this is wholly unintended by the community which 
aims to be both neutral and inclusive.

Best,

George

On 2019-04-12 14:23, Dominic Oldman wrote:
I strongly agree with Florian.

 It is simply right to make these changes.

 D

-

FROM: Crm-sig 
 on behalf 
of Florian
Kräutli 
SENT: 12 April 2019 11:35
TO: Pierre Choffé; Athanasios Velios; 
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
SUBJECT: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove
"Man-"

Dear Pierre and all,

I strongly disagree. This is not about the origins of the word but of
its usage and meaning in present day. The CRM should reflect
(changing) knowledge contexts and we as a community should react to
and respect developments in the world, and not decide based on our
personal opinions about them.

I think this should be put up as an issue and I would vote in favour
of either suggestion: dropping ‘man’ or replacing it with
‘human’.

Best,

Florian

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:13 PM +0200, "Pierre Choffé"
 wrote:

Dear all,

This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our
times and most people (including me) generally avoid getting
involved in such discussions - especially on social media where you
would immediately get drowned in a flood of insults - and the result
is that we have a feeling of consensus on the matter.

Now, we as a community might have a different point of view,
starting with the knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man"
(please consult the wikipedia page [2] for a brief introduction).
Can we please avoid this kind of discussions and leave it to Twitter
and Facebook ?

Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feeling
excluded here ?)

Have a nice day,
Pierre

On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 11:2 AM, Athanasios Velios
 wrote:

I support the change of the English labels to:

E22 Made Object
E25 Made Feature
E71 Made Thing

And I think this can be proposed as an issue to be voted through
the SIG
list.

All the best,

Thanasis

On 12/04/2019 05:38, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Dear all,

On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose
that the
labels for E22 Man-Made Obje

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[George Bruseker]

Dear all,

I think there is a distinction to be made in the question of whether the 
language is in fact biased and whether it is perceived as biased. While 
I would agree with Pierre that there are arguments to be made that it is 
not in fact exclusive language in principle (and valid counterarguments 
to be sure), it is in fact taken by many as being biased and exclusive. 
This in itself makes it exclusive and this is unnecessary and unwanted.


Since a label in the ontology is just a label, and our intention with 
the label in this case is to give a heuristic to the ontology user in 
order to point towards non-naturally generated objects (man made object 
as we have said to now), I think that dropping 'man' from 'man made', 
does not impede this functionality.


Removing this part of the label, however, can remove an unintended 
impression of gender bias. This seems to be a functional gain that is 
compatible with the spirit of CIDOC CRM (view neutral by nature).


Between 'made' and 'human made', I would lean to the latter. 'Made 
Object' is already at the limit of understandability in English (it also 
has some unintended connotations of Mafia language). I think maybe 
'human made', while sounding awkward in present day English, may be the 
direction that everyday language will go anyhow. 'Humankind' sounds very 
natural and more inclusive than 'mankind' certainly. The adjectival form 
will also follow.


Another concern is how problematic would the translation be. Checking 
the translations I could find, I did not find a major problem, but it is 
something to take into consideration.


A serious technical and cost concern for users of CRM would be that 
existing data encoded with the old URIs will now be incompatible with 
this new label. That is a significant trade off.


Finally, there is another class (E24) that includes man made. Added 
below.


E22 Ανθρωπογενές Αντικείμενο
E24 Ανθρωπογενές Υλικό Πράγμα
E25 Ανθρωπογενές Μόρφωμα
E71 Ανθρωπογενές Δημιούργημα

E22-人造物件 (Man-Made Object)
E24-人造实体物 (Physical Man-Made Thing)
E25-人造外貌表征 (Man-Made Feature)
E71-人造物 （Man-Made Thing）


E71 Künstliches
E22 Künstlicher Gegenstand
E24 Hergestelltes
E25 Hergestelltes Merkmal

I, in any case, think it is probably worth making the change -unless the 
costs to users in real terms is exorbitant - since the existing label 
can be perceived to be biased and this is wholly unintended by the 
community which aims to be both neutral and inclusive.


Best,

George

On 2019-04-12 14:23, Dominic Oldman wrote:

I strongly agree with Florian.

 It is simply right to make these changes.

 D

-

FROM: Crm-sig  on behalf of Florian
Kräutli 
SENT: 12 April 2019 11:35
TO: Pierre Choffé; Athanasios Velios; crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
SUBJECT: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove
"Man-"

Dear Pierre and all,

I strongly disagree. This is not about the origins of the word but of
its usage and meaning in present day. The CRM should reflect
(changing) knowledge contexts and we as a community should react to
and respect developments in the world, and not decide based on our
personal opinions about them.

I think this should be put up as an issue and I would vote in favour
of either suggestion: dropping ‘man’ or replacing it with
‘human’.

Best,

Florian

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:13 PM +0200, "Pierre Choffé"
 wrote:


Dear all,

This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our
times and most people (including me) generally avoid getting
involved in such discussions - especially on social media where you
would immediately get drowned in a flood of insults - and the result
is that we have a feeling of consensus on the matter.

Now, we as a community might have a different point of view,
starting with the knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man"
(please consult the wikipedia page [2] for a brief introduction).
Can we please avoid this kind of discussions and leave it to Twitter
and Facebook ?

Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feeling
excluded here ?)

Have a nice day,
Pierre

On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 11:2 AM, Athanasios Velios
 wrote:


I support the change of the English labels to:

E22 Made Object
E25 Made Feature
E71 Made Thing

And I think this can be proposed as an issue to be voted through
the SIG
list.

All the best,

Thanasis

On 12/04/2019 05:38, Robert Sanderson wrote:

Dear all,

On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose

that the

labels for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and E71

Man-Made

Thing be changed to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“.

In this day

and age, I think we should recognize that inclusion and

diversity are

core features of community acceptance, and that including

gender-biased

language is alienating.

Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made

Object, E25

changed to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing.

The “human” nature of the agent that does the 

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Dominic Oldman]

I strongly agree with Florian.

It is simply right to make these changes.

D



From: Crm-sig  on behalf of Florian Kräutli 

Sent: 12 April 2019 11:35
To: Pierre Choffé; Athanasios Velios; crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

Dear Pierre and all,

I strongly disagree. This is not about the origins of the word but of its usage 
and meaning in present day. The CRM should reflect (changing) knowledge 
contexts and we as a community should react to and respect developments in the 
world, and not decide based on our personal opinions about them.

I think this should be put up as an issue and I would vote in favour of either 
suggestion: dropping ‘man’ or replacing it with ‘human’.

Best,

Florian




On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:13 PM +0200, "Pierre Choffé" 
mailto:choffepie...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Dear all,

This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our times and 
most people (including me) generally avoid getting involved in such discussions 
- especially on social media where you would immediately get drowned in a flood 
of insults - and the result is that we have a feeling of consensus on the 
matter.

Now, we as a community might have a different point of view, starting with the 
knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man" (please consult the wikipedia 
page for a brief introduction). Can 
we please avoid this kind of discussions and leave it to Twitter and Facebook ?

Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feeling excluded here 
?)

Have a nice day,
Pierre



On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 11:2 AM, Athanasios Velios  
wrote:

I support the change of the English labels to:

E22 Made Object
E25 Made Feature
E71 Made Thing

And I think this can be proposed as an issue to be voted through the SIG
list.

All the best,

Thanasis


On 12/04/2019 05:38, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose that the
> labels for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and E71 Man-Made
> Thing be changed to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“. In this day
> and age, I think we should recognize that inclusion and diversity are
> core features of community acceptance, and that including gender-biased
> language is alienating.
>
> Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made Object, E25
> changed to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing.
>
> The “human” nature of the agent that does the making is explicit in the
> ontology, in that only humans or groups there-of can be Actors and carry
> out Productions or Creations, so there is no ambiguity about non-humans
> making these.
>
> This issue was discussed at length, and has been open in our profile’s
> tracker for 12 months now. We would greatly prefer that it be solved by
> changing the labels in the documentation, and thereby in the RDFS,
> rather than other RDF specific approaches such as minting new terms and
> using owl:sameAs to assert equality, or rebranding only in the JSON-LD
> serialization but persisting in other serializations. The change is
> consistent, reduces the length of the class names, and is an easy
> substitution. The comprehensibility of the label is still the same.
> Given the renaming of Collection to Curated Holding, migration of
> existing data has the same solution - just substitute the labels.
>
> As a second choice, if the above is not acceptable, we propose to
> instead replace “Man-“ with “Human-“ … only two additional characters,
> but a bit more of a mouthful.
>
> Many thanks for your engagement with this issue!
>
> Rob
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may 
contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
email and/or its attachments you must not take any action based upon them and 
you must not copy or show them to anyone. Please send the email back to us and 
immediately and permanently delete it and its attachments. Where this email is 
unrelated to the business of University of the Arts London or of any of its 
group companies the opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the sender and 
do not necessarily constitute those of University of the Arts London (or the 
relevant group company). Where the sender's signature indicates that the email 
is sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses Limited the following also applies: UAL 
Short Courses Limited is a company registered in England and Wales under 
company number 02361261. Registered Office: University of the Arts London, 272 
High Holborn, London WC1V 7EY

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.f

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Florian Kräutli]

  
  
  

Dear Pierre and all,
I strongly disagree. This is not about the origins of the word but of its usage 
and meaning in present day. The CRM should reflect (changing) knowledge 
contexts and we as a community should react to and respect developments in the 
world, and not decide based on our personal opinions about them. 
I think this should be put up as an issue and I would vote in favour of either 
suggestion: dropping ‘man’ or replacing it with ‘human’. 
Best,
Florian





  




On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:13 PM +0200, "Pierre Choffé" 
 wrote:










Dear all,
This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our times and 
most people (including me) generally avoid getting involved in such discussions 
- especially on social media where you would immediately get drowned in a flood 
of insults - and the result is that we have a feeling of consensus on the 
matter.
Now, we as a community might have a different point of view, starting with the 
knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man" (please consult the wikipedia 
page for a brief introduction). Can we please avoid this kind of discussions 
and leave it to Twitter and Facebook ?
Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feeling excluded here 
?)
Have a nice day,Pierre


 
On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 11:2 AM, Athanasios Velios  
wrote:



I support the change of the English labels to:

E22 Made Object
E25 Made Feature
E71 Made Thing

And I think this can be proposed as an issue to be voted through the SIG
list.

All the best,

Thanasis


On 12/04/2019 05:38, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose that the
> labels for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and E71 Man-Made
> Thing be changed to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“.  In this day
> and age, I think we should recognize that inclusion and diversity are
> core features of community acceptance, and that including gender-biased
> language is alienating.
>
> Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made Object, E25
> changed to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing.
>
> The “human” nature of the agent that does the making is explicit in the
> ontology, in that only humans or groups there-of can be Actors and carry
> out Productions or Creations, so there is no ambiguity about non-humans
> making these.
>
> This issue was discussed at length, and has been open in our profile’s
> tracker for 12 months now. We would greatly prefer that it be solved by
> changing the labels in the documentation, and thereby in the RDFS,
> rather than other RDF specific approaches such as minting new terms and
> using owl:sameAs to assert equality, or rebranding only in the JSON-LD
> serialization but persisting in other serializations.  The change is
> consistent, reduces the length of the class names, and is an easy
> substitution. The comprehensibility of the label is still the same.
> Given the renaming of Collection to Curated Holding, migration of
> existing data has the same solution - just substitute the labels.
>
> As a second choice, if the above is not acceptable, we propose to
> instead replace “Man-“ with “Human-“ … only two additional characters,
> but a bit more of a mouthful.
>
> Many thanks for your engagement with this issue!
>
> Rob
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may 
contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
email and/or its attachments you must not take any action based upon them and 
you must not copy or show them to anyone. Please send the email back to us and 
immediately and permanently delete it and its attachments. Where this email is 
unrelated to the business of University of the Arts London or of any of its 
group companies the opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the sender and 
do not necessarily constitute those of University of the Arts London (or the 
relevant group company). Where the sender's signature indicates that the email 
is sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses Limited the following also applies: UAL 
Short Courses Limited is a company registered in England and Wales under 
company number 02361261. Registered Office: University of the Arts London, 272 
High Holborn, London WC1V 7EY

___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Pierre Choffé]

Dear all,

This subject is typical of the politically correct attitude of our times and 
most people (including me) generally avoid getting involved in such discussions 
- especially on social media where you would immediately get drowned in a flood 
of insults - and the result is that we have a feeling of consensus on the 
matter.

Now, we as a community might have a different point of view, starting with the 
knowledge we have of the origin of the word "man" (please consult the wikipedia 
page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word) ) for a brief introduction). 
Can we please avoid this kind of discussions and leave it to Twitter and 
Facebook ?

Et pax in Terra hominibus bonae volontatis... (any woman feeling excluded here 
?)

Have a nice day,
Pierre

On Fri, Apr 12th, 2019 at 11:2 AM, Athanasios Velios  
wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> I support the change of the English labels to:
> 
> E22 Made Object
> E25 Made Feature
> E71 Made Thing
> 
> And I think this can be proposed as an issue to be voted through the SIG
> list.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Thanasis
> 
> 
> On 12/04/2019 05:38, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose that the
> 
> > labels for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and E71 Man-Made
> > Thing be changed to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“. In this day
> > and age, I think we should recognize that inclusion and diversity are
> > core features of community acceptance, and that including gender-biased
> > language is alienating.
> >
> > Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made Object, E25
> > changed to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing.
> >
> > The “human” nature of the agent that does the making is explicit in the
> > ontology, in that only humans or groups there-of can be Actors and carry
> 
> > out Productions or Creations, so there is no ambiguity about non-humans
> > making these.
> >
> > This issue was discussed at length, and has been open in our profile’s
> > tracker for 12 months now. We would greatly prefer that it be solved by
> > changing the labels in the documentation, and thereby in the RDFS,
> > rather than other RDF specific approaches such as minting new terms and
> > using owl:sameAs to assert equality, or rebranding only in the JSON-LD
> > serialization but persisting in other serializations. The change is
> > consistent, reduces the length of the class names, and is an easy
> > substitution. The comprehensibility of the label is still the same.
> > Given the renaming of Collection to Curated Holding, migration of
> > existing data has the same solution - just substitute the labels.
> >
> > As a second choice, if the above is not acceptable, we propose to
> > instead replace “Man-“ with “Human-“ … only two additional characters,
> > but a bit more of a mouthful.
> >
> > Many thanks for your engagement with this issue!
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Crm-sig mailing list
> > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> >
> This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and
> may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this email and/or its attachments you must not take any
> action based upon them and you must not copy or show them to anyone.
> Please send the email back to us and immediately and permanently delete it
> and its attachments. Where this email is unrelated to the business of
> University of the Arts London or of any of its group companies the
> opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the sender and do not
> necessarily constitute those of University of the Arts London (or the
> relevant group company). Where the sender's signature indicates that the
> email is sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses Limited the following also
> applies: UAL Short Courses Limited is a company registered in England and
> Wales under company number 02361261. Registered Office: University of the
> Arts London, 272 High Holborn, London WC1V 7EY
> 
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Athanasios Velios]

I support the change of the English labels to:

E22 Made Object
E25 Made Feature
E71 Made Thing

And I think this can be proposed as an issue to be voted through the SIG
list.

All the best,

Thanasis


On 12/04/2019 05:38, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose that the
> labels for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and E71 Man-Made
> Thing be changed to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“.  In this day
> and age, I think we should recognize that inclusion and diversity are
> core features of community acceptance, and that including gender-biased
> language is alienating.
>
> Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made Object, E25
> changed to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing.
>
> The “human” nature of the agent that does the making is explicit in the
> ontology, in that only humans or groups there-of can be Actors and carry
> out Productions or Creations, so there is no ambiguity about non-humans
> making these.
>
> This issue was discussed at length, and has been open in our profile’s
> tracker for 12 months now. We would greatly prefer that it be solved by
> changing the labels in the documentation, and thereby in the RDFS,
> rather than other RDF specific approaches such as minting new terms and
> using owl:sameAs to assert equality, or rebranding only in the JSON-LD
> serialization but persisting in other serializations.  The change is
> consistent, reduces the length of the class names, and is an easy
> substitution. The comprehensibility of the label is still the same.
> Given the renaming of Collection to Curated Holding, migration of
> existing data has the same solution - just substitute the labels.
>
> As a second choice, if the above is not acceptable, we propose to
> instead replace “Man-“ with “Human-“ … only two additional characters,
> but a bit more of a mouthful.
>
> Many thanks for your engagement with this issue!
>
> Rob
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
This email and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee and may 
contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
email and/or its attachments you must not take any action based upon them and 
you must not copy or show them to anyone. Please send the email back to us and 
immediately and permanently delete it and its attachments. Where this email is 
unrelated to the business of University of the Arts London or of any of its 
group companies the opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the sender and 
do not necessarily constitute those of University of the Arts London (or the 
relevant group company). Where the sender's signature indicates that the email 
is sent on behalf of UAL Short Courses Limited the following also applies: UAL 
Short Courses Limited is a company registered in England and Wales under 
company number 02361261. Registered Office: University of the Arts London, 272 
High Holborn, London WC1V 7EY

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE E34 PLEASE VOTE

[Christos Papatheodorou]

yes

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:17 PM Martin Doerr  wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> The current scope not of E34 include a reference to the deprecated E84:
>
> OLD
>
> E34 Inscription
>
> Subclass of: E33 Linguistic Object
>
> E37 Mark
>
>
>
> Scope note: This class comprises recognisable, short texts attached 
> to instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing.
>
>
>
> The transcription of the text can be documented in a note by P3 has note: E62 
> String. The alphabet used can be documented by P2 has type: E55 Type. This 
> class does not intend to describe the idiosyncratic characteristics of an 
> individual physical embodiment of an inscription, but the underlying 
> prototype. The physical embodiment is modelled in the CRM as E24 Physical 
> Man-Made Thing.
>
> The relationship of a physical copy of a book to the text it contains is 
> modelled using E84 Information Carrier. P128 carries (is carried by): E33 
> Linguistic Object.
>
>
>
> Examples:
>
> §  “keep off the grass” on a sign stuck in the lawn of the quad of Balliol 
> College
>
> §  The text published in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum V 895
>
> §  Kilroy was here
>
>
>
> In First Order Logic:
>
>E34(x) ⊃ E33(x)
>
>E34(x) ⊃ E37(x)
>
> NEW:
>
> Replace:
>
> The relationship of a physical copy of a book to the text it contains is 
> modelled using E84 Information Carrier. P128 carries (is carried by): E33 
> Linguistic Object.
>
> by:
>
> The relationship of a physical copy of a book to the text it contains is 
> modelled using E22 Man-Made Object. P128 carries (is carried by): E33 
> Linguistic Object.
>
> PLEASE VOTE "Yes" if you agree with the change by April 19.
>
> 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
>
>  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] New Issue: Re-label E22, E25, E71 to remove "Man-"

[Robert Sanderson]

Dear all,

On behalf of the Linked Art consortium, I would like to propose that the labels 
for E22 Man-Made Object, E25 Man-Made Feature and E71 Man-Made Thing be changed 
to drop the unnecessarily gendered “Man-“.  In this day and age, I think we 
should recognize that inclusion and diversity are core features of community 
acceptance, and that including gender-biased language is alienating.

Thus the proposal is: E22’s label should be changed to Made Object, E25 changed 
to Made Feature and E71 changed to Made Thing.

The “human” nature of the agent that does the making is explicit in the 
ontology, in that only humans or groups there-of can be Actors and carry out 
Productions or Creations, so there is no ambiguity about non-humans making 
these.
This issue was discussed at length, and has been open in our profile’s tracker 
for 12 months now. We would greatly prefer that it be solved by changing the 
labels in the documentation, and thereby in the RDFS, rather than other RDF 
specific approaches such as minting new terms and using owl:sameAs to assert 
equality, or rebranding only in the JSON-LD serialization but persisting in 
other serializations.  The change is consistent, reduces the length of the 
class names, and is an easy substitution. The comprehensibility of the label is 
still the same. Given the renaming of Collection to Curated Holding, migration 
of existing data has the same solution - just substitute the labels.

As a second choice, if the above is not acceptable, we propose to instead 
replace “Man-“ with “Human-“ … only two additional characters, but a bit more 
of a mouthful.

Many thanks for your engagement with this issue!

Rob

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE E34 PLEASE VOTE

[Robert Sanderson]

Yes

From: Crm-sig  on behalf of mark mudge 

Reply-To: mark mudge 
Date: Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 2:43 PM
To: Martin Doerr , crm-sig 
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE E34 PLEASE VOTE

I vote Yes.


From: Martin Doerr 
To: crm-sig 
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 12:16 PM
Subject: [Crm-sig] ISSUE E34 PLEASE VOTE

Dear All,
The current scope not of E34 include a reference to the deprecated E84:
OLD
E34 Inscription
Subclass of: 
E33
 Linguistic Object
E37
 Mark

Scope note: This class comprises recognisable, short texts attached to 
instances of E24 Physical Man-Made Thing.

The transcription of the text can be documented in a note by P3 has note: E62 
String. The alphabet used can be documented by P2 has type: E55 Type. This 
class does not intend to describe the idiosyncratic characteristics of an 
individual physical embodiment of an inscription, but the underlying prototype. 
The physical embodiment is modelled in the CRM as E24 Physical Man-Made Thing.
The relationship of a physical copy of a book to the text it contains is 
modelled using E84 Information Carrier. P128 carries (is carried by): E33 
Linguistic Object.

Examples:
•  “keep off the grass” on a sign stuck in the lawn of the quad of Balliol 
College
•  The text published in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum V 895
•  Kilroy was here

In First Order Logic:
   E34(x) ⊃ E33(x)
   E34(x) ⊃ E37(x)
NEW:
Replace:

The relationship of a physical copy of a book to the text it contains is 
modelled using E84 Information Carrier. P128 carries (is carried by): E33 
Linguistic Object.
by:
The relationship of a physical copy of a book to the text it contains is 
modelled using E22 Man-Made Object. P128 carries (is carried by): E33 
Linguistic Object.
PLEASE VOTE "Yes" if you agree with the change by April 19.
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



 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

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE E34 PLEASE VOTE

[mark mudge]

I vote Yes.

  From: Martin Doerr 
 To: crm-sig  
 Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 12:16 PM
 Subject: [Crm-sig] ISSUE E34 PLEASE VOTE
   
  Dear All, The current scope not of E34 include a reference to the deprecated 
E84: OLD
   
E34 Inscription
 Subclass of:     E33 Linguistic Object E37 Mark   Scope note: This 
class comprises recognisable, short texts attached to instances of E24 Physical 
Man-Made Thing.    The transcription of the text can be documented in a note by 
P3 has note: E62 String. The alphabet used can be documented by P2 has type: 
E55 Type. This class does not intend to describe the idiosyncratic 
characteristics of an individual physical embodiment of an inscription, but the 
underlying prototype. The physical embodiment is modelled in the CRM as E24 
Physical Man-Made Thing. The relationship of a physical copy of a book to the 
text it contains is modelled using E84 Information Carrier. P128 carries (is 
carried by): E33 Linguistic Object.    Examples:    §  “keep off the 
grass” on a sign stuck in the lawn of the quad of Balliol College §  The text 
published in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum V 895  §  Kilroy was here    In 
First Order Logic:    E34(x) ⊃ E33(x)   
 E34(x) ⊃ E37(x) NEW: Replace:
  The relationship of a physical copy of a book to the text it contains is 
modelled using E84 Information Carrier. P128 carries (is carried by): E33 
Linguistic Object. by: The relationship of a physical copy of a book to the 
text it contains is modelled using E22 Man-Made Object. P128 carries (is 
carried by): E33 Linguistic Object. PLEASE VOTE "Yes" if you agree with the 
change by April 19. 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 
 
 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