Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
Dear Franco et Al., Actually I have no argument against skill, it would be a similar pattern. My worry would be about making either a language or a skill a conceptual object. I see the reason behind the proposal but I'm not sure especially about language being conceived of as a human made object in the crm sense. There I think we more refer to an intentionally created intellectual object with discrete boundaries. I am not convinced this is an appropriate apprehension of language. We come to be in language and reproduce it. A great genius may change it. Mostly it just happens to us and we do not employ it as an object nor are we intentionally aware of it. No one made it. It forms a sort of horizon for communicative axtion. By using type we avoid the controversy. Skill I would associate with texne in the sense of craft. Craft could be conceived as closer to something like a crm conceptual object but again a craft seems to go beyond any one person or group qua invention so i would find it more comfortable to think of as a type. So if skill were also to be modelled maybe another binary property E21person had skill exx skill Exx skill isa e55 And then perhaps some super property of both E21 had knowledge of e55 I would find the ability to express both of these in crm an extremely useful addition instead of creating ad hoc solutions per project. As to the base issue, I don't mean anything fancy, just whatever is in the basic standard and not a family model. Will check out the demonstration vid when back to WiFi! Best George On Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 9:29 PM Franco Niccolucci wrote: > George, > > OK with me, but you should explain why knowing a language has a superior > status compared to other abilities like > > - making vases > - driving vehicles > - painting > - computation (I am particularly passionate about this one) > - properly defining new classes/properties in the CRM > etc. > > It seems to me that (speaking/knowing/using) a language is just one (very > important) human skill among many, so I would rather consider a broader > class, say Exx Skill, one of which skill types is "knowing a language", and > then use something like > > E21 person Pxx has skill Exx Skill P2 has type E55 “speaking language” P2 > has type E56 “EN”; > as well as: > E21 person Pxx has skill Exx Skill P2 has type E55 “computation” P2 has > type E55 “four basic operations”. > > I leave to you to correctly place Exx Skill in the CRM hierarchy, maybe a > subclass of E28 Conceptual Object. > > I would also be grateful if you are able to point me to a clean and > comprehensive description of CRMBase which you refer to in your last > sentence. > Due to my ignorance, it looks to me like the Phoenix that, in the words of > Don Alfonso in Mozart’s 'Così fan tutte’, “everybody says it exists, but > nobody knows where it is” (a nice performance here: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73rY81pT5Wk). > > Best, > > Franco > > 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 28 ago 2019, alle ore 17:48, George Bruseker < > george.bruse...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > Hi Christian-Emil et al., > > > > Regarding language in particular, my argument would be to make a new > direct binary relation something like E21 Person pxx 'knew language’ E56 > Language. > > > > This relation, to my mind, would be parallel to E18 p45 consists of E57 > Material > > > > There is indeed an event which we normally don’t know anything about > (nor have a research interest in) of learning a language, which leads to > the instance of E21 Person having a constitutional change in knowledge > (Aristotle called it Hexis) whereby they then know a language. I believe > this change in knowledge state is not something that changes the being of > the individual as such (primary quality) which is what p2 has type would > indicate but only creates a modification in the secondary qualities of the > person. > > > > To loosely parallel existing CIDOC CRM modelling, a production event > creates an object. In creating it, materials are used and it creates a new > instance of Human Made Object. This instance of Human Made Object now > consists of an E57 Material like ceramic. So qua what it is made of we say > p45 consists of, qua what it functionally is, we say that it p2 has type > ‘jug’ for example. p45 is not a sub property of has type because the > relation is not one of “being" the material but rather having the substance > of material x. > > > > Regarding time problems, the instance of E21 Person did not always know > the language. That being said when we declare a relation like ‘knew > language’ we state that it was the case that there was a moment of the > existence of this E21 Person where the person had the knowledge (had the > hexis) of knowing x. It is actually
Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
George, OK with me, but you should explain why knowing a language has a superior status compared to other abilities like - making vases - driving vehicles - painting - computation (I am particularly passionate about this one) - properly defining new classes/properties in the CRM etc. It seems to me that (speaking/knowing/using) a language is just one (very important) human skill among many, so I would rather consider a broader class, say Exx Skill, one of which skill types is "knowing a language", and then use something like E21 person Pxx has skill Exx Skill P2 has type E55 “speaking language” P2 has type E56 “EN”; as well as: E21 person Pxx has skill Exx Skill P2 has type E55 “computation” P2 has type E55 “four basic operations”. I leave to you to correctly place Exx Skill in the CRM hierarchy, maybe a subclass of E28 Conceptual Object. I would also be grateful if you are able to point me to a clean and comprehensive description of CRMBase which you refer to in your last sentence. Due to my ignorance, it looks to me like the Phoenix that, in the words of Don Alfonso in Mozart’s 'Così fan tutte’, “everybody says it exists, but nobody knows where it is” (a nice performance here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73rY81pT5Wk). Best, Franco 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 28 ago 2019, alle ore 17:48, George Bruseker > ha scritto: > > Hi Christian-Emil et al., > > Regarding language in particular, my argument would be to make a new direct > binary relation something like E21 Person pxx 'knew language’ E56 Language. > > This relation, to my mind, would be parallel to E18 p45 consists of E57 > Material > > There is indeed an event which we normally don’t know anything about (nor > have a research interest in) of learning a language, which leads to the > instance of E21 Person having a constitutional change in knowledge (Aristotle > called it Hexis) whereby they then know a language. I believe this change in > knowledge state is not something that changes the being of the individual as > such (primary quality) which is what p2 has type would indicate but only > creates a modification in the secondary qualities of the person. > > To loosely parallel existing CIDOC CRM modelling, a production event creates > an object. In creating it, materials are used and it creates a new instance > of Human Made Object. This instance of Human Made Object now consists of an > E57 Material like ceramic. So qua what it is made of we say p45 consists of, > qua what it functionally is, we say that it p2 has type ‘jug’ for example. > p45 is not a sub property of has type because the relation is not one of > “being" the material but rather having the substance of material x. > > Regarding time problems, the instance of E21 Person did not always know the > language. That being said when we declare a relation like ‘knew language’ we > state that it was the case that there was a moment of the existence of this > E21 Person where the person had the knowledge (had the hexis) of knowing x. > It is actually true for the whole lifetime of the entity that at sometime it > knew language x just in case in real life at sometime in its life it knew > language x. > > I think that in the interest of not endlessly filling up CRMBase, it might be > better to put such an addition into CRMSoc. The above suggestion does not > mean to argue that we couldn’t or shouldn’t also model learning events or use > events with regards to language but rather that there is a basic function > that is ontologically correct to assert that a Person knows a language which > fits a real world use case. > > Best, > > George > > > > > > > > >> On Aug 28, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore >> wrote: >> >> Dear George & all, >> Your text and sketch of a solution is indeed interesting. I agree that >> (natural, human) languages is a special case. Animals are currently not in >> the scope of CRM. I also agree that there is (currently) no links between an >> instance 'English (language)' of E55 Type and an instance 'speaker/writer >> ofEnglish (language)' of E55 Type. Should such a connection be in the type >> system (in the fringes or outside CRM)? If we introduce a new property from >> E21 Person what is the range, E55 Type? >> >> Best, >> Christian-Emil >> From: Crm-sig on behalf of George Bruseker >> >> Sent: 27 August 2019 10:53 >> To: Franco Niccolucci >> Cc: crm-sig; Runa, Lucília; ste...@paveprime.org; Barbedo, Francisco >> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language >> >> Dear all, >> >> Sticking to the question of documenting when we have information that >> someone knew a language or had a skill in a technique, I reiterate that I >> believe really need a new property and no
Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
Hi Christian-Emil et al., Regarding language in particular, my argument would be to make a new direct binary relation something like E21 Person pxx 'knew language’ E56 Language. This relation, to my mind, would be parallel to E18 p45 consists of E57 Material There is indeed an event which we normally don’t know anything about (nor have a research interest in) of learning a language, which leads to the instance of E21 Person having a constitutional change in knowledge (Aristotle called it Hexis) whereby they then know a language. I believe this change in knowledge state is not something that changes the being of the individual as such (primary quality) which is what p2 has type would indicate but only creates a modification in the secondary qualities of the person. To loosely parallel existing CIDOC CRM modelling, a production event creates an object. In creating it, materials are used and it creates a new instance of Human Made Object. This instance of Human Made Object now consists of an E57 Material like ceramic. So qua what it is made of we say p45 consists of, qua what it functionally is, we say that it p2 has type ‘jug’ for example. p45 is not a sub property of has type because the relation is not one of “being" the material but rather having the substance of material x. Regarding time problems, the instance of E21 Person did not always know the language. That being said when we declare a relation like ‘knew language’ we state that it was the case that there was a moment of the existence of this E21 Person where the person had the knowledge (had the hexis) of knowing x. It is actually true for the whole lifetime of the entity that at sometime it knew language x just in case in real life at sometime in its life it knew language x. I think that in the interest of not endlessly filling up CRMBase, it might be better to put such an addition into CRMSoc. The above suggestion does not mean to argue that we couldn’t or shouldn’t also model learning events or use events with regards to language but rather that there is a basic function that is ontologically correct to assert that a Person knows a language which fits a real world use case. Best, George > On Aug 28, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore > wrote: > > Dear George & all, > Your text and sketch of a solution is indeed interesting. I agree that > (natural, human) languages is a special case. Animals are currently not in > the scope of CRM. I also agree that there is (currently) no links between an > instance 'English (language)' of E55 Type and an instance 'speaker/writer > ofEnglish (language)' of E55 Type. Should such a connection be in the type > system (in the fringes or outside CRM)? If we introduce a new property from > E21 Person what is the range, E55 Type? > > Best, > Christian-Emil > From: Crm-sig on behalf of George Bruseker > > Sent: 27 August 2019 10:53 > To: Franco Niccolucci > Cc: crm-sig; Runa, Lucília; ste...@paveprime.org; Barbedo, Francisco > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language > > Dear all, > > Sticking to the question of documenting when we have information that someone > knew a language or had a skill in a technique, I reiterate that I believe > really need a new property and not to use p2 has type. > > p2 has type is a good solution for classifying a kind of phenomena or for > specializing a class when it does not require a new relation in the ontology. > It's a very useful tool but it does not work for what we need to document > here. > > The semantics of saying that someone had knowledge in a language can indeed > be interpreted as E21 Person p2 has type E55 "English Speaker". It could not, > however, be typed E21 person p2 has type E57 Language "English". Why? Because > the E57 Type classifies the phenomenon of language not of people. The E55 is > relative to the phenomenon it classifies/specializes. People are not language > nor vice versa. One of the things we would want to make possible in linking > an E21 person to an E57 Language is to create consistent and potentially > serendipitous relations between an instance of person and an instance of > language. (As one of Rob's examples: the work used E57 English and the person > who encountered it E5 was a knower of E57 English, ergo, they could but did > not necessarily read it!) This would not be facilitated by saying E21 Person > p2 has type E55 "English Speaker" because there are no given semantic > connections between the instance "English Speaker" which classified a person > as a kind and the instance E57 Language "English" which classifies linguistic > phenomena. > > The semantic intent, I would argue, in the schemas that document fields like > language and technique is often not to say that this person is of type > "English Speaker" or even of type "Painter" but that they have/had knowledge > of English (linguistic phenomenon) or Painting (technical phenomenon). > Be
Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
Dear George & all, Your text and sketch of a solution is indeed interesting. I agree that (natural, human) languages is a special case. Animals are currently not in the scope of CRM. I also agree that there is (currently) no links between an instance 'English (language)' of E55 Type and an instance 'speaker/writer ofEnglish (language)' of E55 Type. Should such a connection be in the type system (in the fringes or outside CRM)? If we introduce a new property from E21 Person what is the range, E55 Type? Best, Christian-Emil From: Crm-sig on behalf of George Bruseker Sent: 27 August 2019 10:53 To: Franco Niccolucci Cc: crm-sig; Runa, Lucília; ste...@paveprime.org; Barbedo, Francisco Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language Dear all, Sticking to the question of documenting when we have information that someone knew a language or had a skill in a technique, I reiterate that I believe really need a new property and not to use p2 has type. p2 has type is a good solution for classifying a kind of phenomena or for specializing a class when it does not require a new relation in the ontology. It's a very useful tool but it does not work for what we need to document here. The semantics of saying that someone had knowledge in a language can indeed be interpreted as E21 Person p2 has type E55 "English Speaker". It could not, however, be typed E21 person p2 has type E57 Language "English". Why? Because the E57 Type classifies the phenomenon of language not of people. The E55 is relative to the phenomenon it classifies/specializes. People are not language nor vice versa. One of the things we would want to make possible in linking an E21 person to an E57 Language is to create consistent and potentially serendipitous relations between an instance of person and an instance of language. (As one of Rob's examples: the work used E57 English and the person who encountered it E5 was a knower of E57 English, ergo, they could but did not necessarily read it!) This would not be facilitated by saying E21 Person p2 has type E55 "English Speaker" because there are no given semantic connections between the instance "English Speaker" which classified a person as a kind and the instance E57 Language "English" which classifies linguistic phenomena. The semantic intent, I would argue, in the schemas that document fields like language and technique is often not to say that this person is of type "English Speaker" or even of type "Painter" but that they have/had knowledge of English (linguistic phenomenon) or Painting (technical phenomenon). Because someone knows or uses a technique does make them someone who would generally be classified (with regards to official documentation) as being an exemplar of that language/technique. So as Rob is not necessarily a 'French Speaker" though he knows French, George is not necessarily a Painter, though he may have a knowledge of painting notable enough to document. (It is counterfactual, I don't even have this knowledge but for lack of a better example) Human beings are an objective phenomenon that can be witnessed and have certain behaviours and potentials which other phenomena do not, one of which includes the ability to know. We should be able to document this objective phenomenon because it falls within scope. The kind of knowledge in question is not an act of knowing (temporal) but the result of having learned and now acquired a new understanding which allows the human being to act in the world in a new skillful way in certain situations. This knowledge remains, more or less present, in the knower without any particular activation once they have acquired it (forgetting and rustiness not withstanding). It is simply one of their properties. It's all a long winded way of saying that we need a relation between E21 Person (at least) to indicate that they have a knowledge. There should be a binary property for this (which could then be extended) which allows one to make the simple statement, A knows B. This would not be a sub property of P2 has type, but a new property. I'm not sure if it would have an existing superproperty. My original suggestion would be to stick to language and then go for a super class, although the question of technique also arises. The other issues Rob and Franco raise about documenting fiat groups/sets are very important but perhaps we could make them another discussion and issue (when it comes time to formulating something particular for voting on at SIG). About the idea of making language a conceptual object, I think we would have to have a lot of discussion and reflection on that, because it seems like a large metaphysical issue. Language is obviously very particular to human being, Aristotle called us the rational (logos) animal. But it is not clear that logos is the invention of human being or that it can be said to be something that we can use in a utilitarian way like
Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language
My continued 2 cents … I agree that P2 is problematic when used with Language or Technique… a person is not / should not be classified as a Language. The not queries were simply ones that I came up with off the top of my head 😊 I’m sure there are just as many equivalents with a positive correlation. I’m in two minds about “activity” given its scope note: > This class comprises actions intentionally carried out by instances of E39 Actor that result in changes of state in the cultural, social, or physical systems documented. I don’t think there is a meaningful change of state that is the result of knowing a language, or even something attributable to all of the observable acts of usage of a language by an individual. No cultural documentation system I know of records the basis for asserting the skills of an individual – they are simply asserted – but I do agree with Thanasis that this injection of action is beneficial and very typical of CRM based models. Rob From: Crm-sig on behalf of Athanasios Velios Reply-To: "thana...@softicon.co.uk" Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 6:39 AM To: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P72 has Language Dear all, The fact that our documentation systems document a direct relationship between language/technique and person does not mean that a direct relationship is needed in the CRM (we have many examples of direct relationships in documentation systems which do not exist in the CRM, e.g. "the date" of an object). The act of speaking using a specific language or painting using a specific technique can be modelled through the respective activities (and I would argue that agency is not limited by the person's age, i.e. some babies are certainly determined to do things). Modelling through activity allows searching based on the language of a text in relation to the language spoken by a person during events of a specific time-span. I think the queries that Rob mentioned can be answered that way. I appreciate the difference between the activity of speaking using a language and the mental capacity of a person to speak a language or to hold any knowledge. I am not sure there are any research questions that cannot be answered by modelling this through using activity. To model knowledge is to model deduction for which we already have necessary classes. All the best, Thanasis On 27/08/2019 11:53, George Bruseker wrote: Dear all, Sticking to the question of documenting when we have information that someone knew a language or had a skill in a technique, I reiterate that I believe really need a new property and not to use p2 has type. p2 has type is a good solution for classifying a kind of phenomena or for specializing a class when it does not require a new relation in the ontology. It's a very useful tool but it does not work for what we need to document here. The semantics of saying that someone had knowledge in a language can indeed be interpreted as E21 Person p2 has type E55 "English Speaker". It could not, however, be typed E21 person p2 has type E57 Language "English". Why? Because the E57 Type classifies the phenomenon of language not of people. The E55 is relative to the phenomenon it classifies/specializes. People are not language nor vice versa. One of the things we would want to make possible in linking an E21 person to an E57 Language is to create consistent and potentially serendipitous relations between an instance of person and an instance of language. (As one of Rob's examples: the work used E57 English and the person who encountered it E5 was a knower of E57 English, ergo, they could but did not necessarily read it!) This would not be facilitated by saying E21 Person p2 has type E55 "English Speaker" because there are no given semantic connections between the instance "English Speaker" which classified a person as a kind and the instance E57 Language "English" which classifies linguistic phenomena. The semantic intent, I would argue, in the schemas that document fields like language and technique is often not to say that this person is of type "English Speaker" or even of type "Painter" but that they have/had knowledge of English (linguistic phenomenon) or Painting (technical phenomenon). Because someone knows or uses a technique does make them someone who would generally be classified (with regards to official documentation) as being an exemplar of that language/technique. So as Rob is not necessarily a 'French Speaker" though he knows French, George is not necessarily a Painter, though he may have a knowledge of painting notable enough to document. (It is counterfactual, I don't even have this knowledge but for lack of a better example) Human beings are an objective phenomenon that can be witnessed and have certain behaviours and potentials which other phenomena do not, one of which includes the ability to know. We should be able to document this objective phenomenon because it falls within scope. The kind of knowledge in que
