Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Statements about Statements.

[Anaïs Guillem via Crm-sig]

he
>>>>>>> discourse domain, including instances of class E13 as part of the 
>>>>>>> modelled
>>>>>>> domain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For this last task (or domain of discourse), it would seems
>>>>>>> reasonable and in line with best practices to use the PROV model and the
>>>>>>> corresponding PROV-O ontology, a W3C recommendation. Or providing a
>>>>>>> specific extension of the CRM, compatible and aligned with the PROV 
>>>>>>> model.
>>>>>>> But using PROV-O seems a good choice in order to facilitate
>>>>>>> interoperability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There remains the more fundamental question of whether the current
>>>>>>> debate about RDF implementation is not in fact indicative of a more
>>>>>>> fundamental problem related to properties of properties and the implicit
>>>>>>> and richer information they contain, which cannot be adequately 
>>>>>>> expressed
>>>>>>> in RDF without conceptualising them in terms of actual classes. Aren't
>>>>>>> these rather hybrid P(roperty)C(lasses), especially if they should be
>>>>>>> declared as subclasses of E1, to be considered as *de facto*
>>>>>>> classes and not just properties? Because if they are just statements, 
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> adopting one or the other form of existing RDF reifications practices 
>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>> to be the good way to go.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Francesco
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 10.05.23 à 18:48, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest to resolve the issue of referring to the provenance of .1
>>>>>>> properties more specifically:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Solution a: Add properties to E13 to specify a .1 property. This may
>>>>>>> be more effective than the double indirection via PC class instance and 
>>>>>>> 4
>>>>>>> links of the E13 construct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Solution b: Use RDF reification for this specific problem via the PC
>>>>>>> class.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need to examine in both cases the inferences we want to maintain
>>>>>>> about the base property and its domain and range, and what the relevant
>>>>>>> query construct is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally, I prefer solution c: Use the annotation model of CRM
>>>>>>> Dig, which goes via Named Graphs. This is much more performant and
>>>>>>> logically clearer, because Named Graphs are implemented as direct
>>>>>>> references to property identifier, and maintain a reference count for 
>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>> one. This is an important logic in its own right. Inferences about the
>>>>>>> .properties would work in out ouf of a Named Graph, whereas the 
>>>>>>> reification
>>>>>>> may need additional rules.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The query languages of Quad stores support them explicitly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The latest version of 3M supports Named Graph definitions. This
>>>>>>> feature should be tested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would rather discourage E13 in the long term as a means to denote
>>>>>>> provenance generally and recommend a uniform use of Named Graphs. I am
>>>>>>> aware that not all RDF encodings support the feature. I that case we 
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> resort to reification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Opinions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/9/2023 10:37 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Christian-Emil, All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>&

Re: [Crm-sig] Bias in the CRM

[Anaïs Guillem via Crm-sig]

Dear Thanasis, all,
Some digital humanists work and publish on this question of bias in digital
humanities: here is an example of very a propos publication:

https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/425

I gathered myself bibliography about decolonizing knowledge and methodology
especially in digital project. I could join the discussion of your working
group if you want.
Cheers,
Anais

Le mer. 3 mars 2021 à 14:58, Athanasios Velios  a
écrit :

> Dear all,
>
> In version 7.1 a short but important sentence has been added at the end
> of the scope section:
>
> "Discussions on the types of bias present in the CIDOC CRM are in
> progress within the CIDOC CRM community."
>
> Issue 530 is used to track the discussions here:
>
> http://cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-530-bias-in-data-structure
>
> It is important to engage in this discussion so that we first understand
> the issues around bias and privileged positions and then how these may
> or may not impact the development of the model.
>
> We will then be more confident in making a more complete statement is
> future versions. Issue 530 is scheduled to be discussed at the community
> session of the forthcoming meeting.
>
> Looking forward to it.
>
> All the best,
>
> Thanasis
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>


-- 
Anaïs Guillem
Architect-archaeologist
+33 630005089
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] CRM translation working group

[Anaïs Guillem via Crm-sig]

Count me in as well.
Cheers,
Anais

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 17:44 Franco Niccolucci via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:

> Please count me in
>
> Franco
>
> Prof. Franco Niccolucci
> Director, VAST-LAB
> PIN - U. of Florence
> Scientific Coordinator ARIADNEplus
> Technology Director 4CH
>
> Editor-in-Chief
> ACM Journal of Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH)
>
> Piazza Ciardi 25
> 59100 Prato, Italy
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Re: [Crm-sig] Propose New Issue: Guidelines and Protocols for Translating CIDOC CRM

[Anaïs Guillem]

 understanding the
> standard or finding useful philosophic correlate expressions in different
> languages.
>
> Do/can we facilitate a place of exchange on these topics?
>
> Means of Approaching (Ontological Translation Methodology)
>
> Are there better or worse methods for approaching the translation task as
> such?
>
> E.g.: should one translate classes and properties from E1 to En, P1 to Pn
> or should one follow the ontological hierarchy?
>
> What are key terms that might best be approached first in order to support
> the general translation? (E.g.: Space Time Volume?)
>
> Change Management - Version Compare
>
> What is the best way to manage iteration between version and efficient
> translation? (don’t want to retranslate all if possible)
>
> Place of Publication of Translation and Level of Recognition
>
> Where are official translations published? Are they sufficiently visible?
> What is their relation to serializations?
>
> Copyright Issues
>
> Under what copyright should translations be made?
>
> Infrastructure to Support Publication / Promotion of Translations
>
> Is there any? Should there be any?
>
> Template for Translators’ Introduction
>
> The translation work in itself is another intellectual work which requires
> many important choices and requires the introduction of an interpretation
> of meaning and sense. A translator’s introduction then would be important
> in order to convey important decisions and methodological choices. Should
> this be standardized?
>
>
> The above represents a first set of ideas. I propose we have a general
> discussion of this question and see if there is interest and capacity in
> the membership to create such guidelines and protocols.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George
>
>
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>


-- 
Anaïs Guillem
Architect-archaeologist
+33 630005089
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Traduction du CIDOC CRM en Francais

[Anaïs Guillem]

***For the English version please scroll down***

Bonjour a tous,

Si vous souhaitez participer a l'effort collectif de traduction du CIDOC
CRM en Francais, venez nous rejoindre demain lors de l'appel mensuel pour
en discuter.

D'apres un Doodle, la majorite des participants seraient disponibles les
3eme mardis de chaque mois pour nos appels mensuels.

Compte-tenu des changements d'heure d'hiver: pour demain Mardi 17 Novembre
2020 :
Pacific Time 7:30-8:30AM
Quebec Time 10:30-11:30AM
France 3:30--4:30 PM

Toutes les informations relatives a ce projet sont disponibles sur le
Gitlab de Humanum:

https://gitlab.huma-num.fr/bdavid/doc-fr-cidoc-crm

Créez-vous un profil et joignez le projet!


Voici l'invitation Zoom pour le meeting du 17 Novembre 2020 et les
suivants.

Au plaisir de vous voir demain, Bonne journée Anais
--

Anais Guillem is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Traduction du CIDOC CRM en Francais Time: Nov 17, 2020 07:30 AM
Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting
https://ucmerced.zoom.us/j/84320373399?pwd=NFhMS2hxbXA2Sm0vVDVlWSt1dnovZz09

Meeting ID: 843 2037 3399 Passcode: 2020 One tap mobile
+16699006833,,84320373399# US (San Jose) +13462487799,,84320373399# US
(Houston)

Dial by your location +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 346 248 7799 US
(Houston) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington D.C)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 646 876 9923 US (New York) Meeting ID: 843
2037 3399 Find your local number: https://ucmerced.zoom.us/u/kbNES8YQIC

Join by SIP 84320373...@zoomcrc.com

Join by H.323 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) 115.114.131.7
(India Mumbai) 115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad) 213.19.144.110 (Amsterdam
Netherlands) 213.244.140.110 (Germany) 103.122.166.55 (Australia)
149.137.40.110 (Singapore) 64.211.144.160 (Brazil) 69.174.57.160 (Canada)
207.226.132.110 (Japan) Meeting ID: 843 2037 3399 *Passcode: 2020*

***

Hi everyone,
If you wish to join us in the collective effort for translating the new
version of CIDOC CRM in French please join the Zoom call tomorrow Tuesday
November 17th
Pacific Time 7:30-8:30AM
Quebec Time 10:30-11:30AM
France 3:30--4:30 PM

The discussion will be in French. The meetings will be organized once a
month on the 3rd Tuesday

Looking forward to see you tomorrow,
All my best,
Anais
___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

[Crm-sig] Creative Process Representation extension

[Anaïs Guillem]

Hi SIG members,
George and I have been collaborating with SARI (Nicola Carboni, Thomas
Haensli, Matteo Lorenzini) this year to facilitate their data integration
about architecture and art archives and we would like to open the
discussion more broadly in the SIG group for those who are interested in
questions of creative processes and art.

Dependencies CIDOC CRM and extensions: Creative Processes Representation
(CPR) ontology is built on:

CIDOC CRM 6.2.1

FRBRoo 2.4

CRMSoc 0.9

Scope: Creative Processes Representation, is an ontological model
harmonizing to the CIDOC CRM family of models that aims to facilitate the
representation and integration of information related to creative processes
and the materialization of ideas into reality. It has a particular focus on
architectural creative processes and will open its scope to deal with
artistic creative processes as well. The presently proposed model and its
related classes and properties have been modelled to cover architectural
practice, art, archives and design activities.

The solidified model is documented here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o32SHd8dzd5FZr1YpqsTA9ZTVHMA0nf7p6bcmjVgY3Y/edit?usp=sharing

This link allow you to read and comment. If you wish to engage with us with
the modeling discussions, examples or consider to use the model for your
own datasets, please write an email to both George and I (
anais.guil...@gmail.com; george.bruse...@gmail.com) or answering this SIG
email thread, we would be thrilled to exchange.

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

[Crm-sig] New Issue: Collaborative (Updated) Translation of the current CRM in French [X-ICS Spam]

[Anaïs Guillem]

Context:

A group of French archaeologists (and/or related profiles) from the MASA
consortium are willing to contribute collaboratively to update the
translation of the current CRM in French.


Reference to:

model: CRMbase, version: 6.2.7, class: all, relation: all


Statement of the issue:

outdated French translation of CRMbase documentation.


Argument about the issue: the understanding of CRM concepts is easier with
a translation, rathan the English version of the document. The last known
translation in French is the version 5.


Method proposed to solve the issue:

collaborative translation of the CRMbase document for dissemination
purposes in the French speaking communities.


Proposed solution(s): gathering a collaborative working group through the
MASA consortium and the SIG-list, find the last translation in French
available, organizing a Git framework or a docbook.

So far, the volunteers for working on the translation are: (if you want to
join the working group, send an email):

Anais Guillem

aguil...@ucmerced.edu; anais.guil...@gmail.com

Bulle Leonetti

bulle.leone...@inha.fr

Hélène Jamet

helene.ja...@mom.fr

Olivier Marlet

olivier.mar...@univ-tours.fr

Danielle Ziebelin

danielle.ziebe...@imag.fr

Christophe Tuffery

christophe.tuff...@inrap.fr

Raphaëlle Krummeich

raphaelle.krumme...@univ-rouen.fr

Diane Rego

diane.r...@unicaen.fr

Emmanuelle Morlock

emmanuelle.morl...@mom.fr

Bertrand David

bertrand.da...@cnrs.fr

Adeline Levivier

adeline.leviv...@gmail.com; adeline.leviv...@efeo.net


Juliette Hueber

juliette.hue...@inha.fr

Aurelia Vasile

aurelia.vas...@uca.fr
-- 

Best,
Anaïs Guillem

[Crm-sig] New issue: harmonization of graphical documentation about CRM

[Anaïs Guillem]

*New Issue: Graphical Template, Color Code*

Following the issue about updating the introduction texts and diagrams of
CRMbase, the diagrams need harmonization of color and forms. The color
coding proposed is the one used initially since 2015 by the CRM game and
implemented in 3M already. The color coding is available in the attached
document "colorCRMTemplate".
-- 
Anaïs

Re: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: Scholarly Reading.

[Anaïs Guillem]

Dear all,
following the discussion during the sig meeting, here is the link to the 
diagrams representing the conversation with the Nero’s example that can be used 
for HW:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kLy--Qf3mCoLMYxE264ihiIXUgXSLkWzqFTad8weVcI/edit?usp=sharing
 


Feel free to comment 
Best,
Anaïs

> Le 4 avr. 2017 à 21:25, Simon Spero  a écrit :
> 
> A quick meta-point on the issue, and the term factoid. 
> 
> 1. The issue as a whole involves so many different complicated questions that 
> any attempt to simplify inference without explicating them separately is 
> likely to have problems.  The issue might involve epistemic modal logics; 
> doxastic logics (which usually are paraconsistent); justification logics; 
> context logics; speech acts; quotation; DRT; and all sorts of other fun 
> stuff. 
> 
> It might be possible to provide for the desired inferences using something 
> like IKL (~ ISO Common Logic plus a proposition forming operator (that)). 
> Like CL, it's first order with quantification over predicates. 
> 
> 2. The term factoid has a second sense in US English, referring to a 
> something that is true, but trivial. This sense is almost completely 
> dominant; a factoid in this sense is JTB. 
> 
> The earlier sense has been more or less obliterated in common usage. I 
> translate the first sense to be "a belief  justified solely by a single 
> writing" , possibly with a connotation the creator of the writing either  
> believed the factoid to be false, or believed that they did not know the 
> factoid, though that could be definitional. This sense of factoid seems to be 
> not JTB,  even if it is accidentally true, and the form of the publication 
> would normally be justification.  [NB: not equating JTB and knowledge] 
> 
> Simon
> 
> On Apr 4, 2017 9:19 AM, "Francesco Beretta" 
>  > wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> Here some interesting documentation about the Factoid model:
> 
> http://factoid-dighum.kcl.ac.uk/fpo-factoid-prosopography-ontology/# 
> 
> Best
> 
> Francesco
> 
> Le 30.03.17 à 17:10, martin a écrit :
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> My colleague Athina found the following paper:
>> Michele Pasin, John Bradley; Factoid-based prosopography and computer 
>> ontologies: towards an integrated approach. Lit Linguist Computing 2015; 30 
>> (1): 86-97. 
>> 
>> It seems that "factoid" describes the attitude towards a text I tried to 
>> formulate as "Reading" ? 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On 23/3/2017 8:10 μμ, martin wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> I propose to start the discussion about a simplified Inference model for 
>>> the case in which the interpretation of a text as a proposition is not 
>>> questioned, but other things are questioned:
>>> 
>>> A) assertions of historical truth: We need a text with a questioned fact, 
>>> such as Nero singing in Rome when it was burning. I think Tacitus states he 
>>> was singing in Rome, and another source says he was on the countryside.
>>> 
>>> B) Shakespeare's "love is not love" : scholarly interpretation = 
>>> translation of sense
>>> 
>>> C) Questioning provenance or authenticity of texts: In the Merchant of 
>>> Venice, place details are mentioned that only a person who was there could 
>>> have written that. Shakespeare was not allowed to travel abroad.
>>> C1) Or, critical editions: In the first written version of Buddha's 
>>> speaches (Pali Canon), there are identifiable passages that present 
>>> past-Buddha dogmata. 
>>> 
>>> I would start with A), then B), then C)
>>> 
>>> So, we first want to solve the case that the premise is a proposition, 
>>> which is not believed as such.
>>> Rather, it is believed that the author of the text meant to express this 
>>> proposition. This implies that the premise does not make any sense without 
>>> a provenance assumption, which must be believed. 
>>> 
>>> In A), the provenance of the text from Tacitus is believed. His good will 
>>> to say the truth about Nero not.
>>> In B) The provenance "Shakespeare" back to the respective edition/name or 
>>> pseudonym/place of creation is not questioned.
>>> In C1) The text as being that compiled following the first performance is 
>>> not questioned, but who wrote the text under the name of Shakespeare is 
>>> questioned.
>>> In C2) The provenance of the Pali Canon edition is not questioned, neither 
>>> that its content mainly goes historically back to Buddha, but the 
>>> provenance of a paragraph is questioned.
>>> 
>>> Therefore, we could Introduce a subclass of I2 Belief i'd call "reading", 
>>> which puts the focus on believing authenticity of a comprehensible natural 
>>> language proposition relative to an explicitly stated provenance, but does 
>>> not mean believing the proposition, nor questioning the intended meaning of 
>>> the