Issue 260: Review specializations of Appellation

Starting Date: 
2014-04-04
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

When the crm-sig closed the issue 233 in Hague meeting, they decided that someone should write an issue about which specializations of appellation should be removed. 

30th CRM-SIG meeting, Hague April 2014

Current Proposal: 

In the 32nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 25th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting the crm-sig, reviewing this issue,  has  noted that a class definition in CRM must not depend on the incidental association of its instances with another entity instance. The sense of subclasses of Appellation has been misinterpreted in that sense. the discourse about inferring the class of something identified by a special kind of identifier appears to be exotic after years of CRM applications.

This would justify putting this stuff into an extension  about Named Entity resolution and TEI.
Steve, Arianna Ciula, Øyvind, will elaborate this issue by reviewing the subclasses of E41 Appellation.

Posted by Oyvind on 20/5/2015

Some preliminary notes, sorry about being late, of course:

1. Add to E41 scope note, this paragraph:

“Specific subclasses of E41 Appellation should be used when instances of E41 Appellation of a characteristic form are used for particular objects. Instances of E49 Time Appellation, for example, which take the form of instances of E50 Date, can be easily recognised.”

this addition:

“Thus, the use of subclasses of E41 is not determined of the characteristics of the object the appellation refer to, e.g., a person or a place, but rather the form of the appellation showing it as a special type of an appellation, such as a place name or person name.”

2. Subclasses of E41

E35 Title: scope note misleading. It refers to something functioning a title, not having the form of a title.

E42 Identifier: scope note misleading. It refers to something functioning as an identifier, not having the form of one.

E44 Place Appellation: scope note correct (“any sort of identifier characteristically used to refer to an E53 Place”) but could be clearer.

E49 Time Appellation: scope note correct but could be clearer, as E44.

E51 Contact Point: I think the scope note is OK, but not sure how clear it is.

E75 Conceptual Object Appellation: scope note correct and clear (“by their form or syntax specific to identifying instances of”). Use this phrasing on the others?

E82 Actor Appellation: scope note correct but could be clearer, as E44.

3. Putting stuff in extension?

It would be good to know more about current use of these subclasses, partly to examine how they are (mis]used, partly to know if any of them are not used very much.

As for what should be in the extension I must admit I do not really remember the details. 


Posted by Arianna Ciula on 20/5/2015

Hi Øyvind,

Thanks for this. I am in a hurry now but since I know the meeting is already taking place I prefer to reply with something quick than nothing.

I think you addition is god but there is a typo:
- the use of subclasses of E41 is not determined of the characteristics of the object --> the use of subclasses of E41 is not determined **by** the characteristics of the object

Based on your addition as example we could maybe use a place name used as toponymic surname. This would be a case of E44 Place Appellation despite the fact that it is naming a person. For example in the Fine Rolls we had many cases like the following:
Isabella d'Aubigny (Alban', Alben', Albin', Albini, Albiniac', Albiniaco, Albyn) [Aubigné, Saint Aubin d', dep. Ille-et-Vilaine, France]

For clarity 'd'Aubigny' is the toponymic surname; within round brackets you have the textual variants and within the square brackets the details of where the place ' Aubigny' is.

I hope this is useful for now.


Posted by Øyvind   on 20/5/2015 

Thanks for the comments, Arianna!

We will use them when we discuss it. The example is an interesting one — there is a comparable one in TEI (my mother’s father  ). Not sure they are equal thought. His name is Dystvold. We should compare at one point maybe.


Posted by   Øyvindon 20/5/2015

To remind ourselves, this is how TEI does it:

<persName>
<forename>Johan</forename>
<surname type="toponymic" ref="#dystvold">Dystvold</surname>
</persName>
<!-- ... -->
<placeName xml:id="dystvold">Dystvold</placeName>

So here it is claimed (in this case truthfully) that the name is a surname, but it is toponymic and linked to the place name.

Just to throw it in, I am not sure how equal these are.

In confusion,


posted by Arianna Ciula on 20/5/2015

Yes. You told me before I think.

They are comparable:

<persName>
<forename>Johan</forename>
<surname type="toponymic" ref="#dystvold">Dystvold</surname>
</persName>
<!-- ... -->
<placeName xml:id="dystvold">Dystvold</placeName>

If we had to map this  <surname type="toponymic"> would be an instance of E44 Place Appellation but so would also be the <placeName xml:id="dystvold">.

What is missing in the TEI example is information on the location of the place of course (and as you know we have the problem that in TEI you can replicate the place geopolitical structure within a <placeName>... hence the confusion between the thing being named and the type of name).

This makes me think that the use of 'form' for appellations might be also misleading (but I know that might be problematic to touch) because it could be interpreted to the form of the name in linguistic, lexicographical, entomological sense (what in TEI is called <nym>).


posted by Oyevind

Right.

Form: we cannot step back from complexity here. We have to work through the complexity, hopefully to an easy to understand result. It seems clear that what we can give this week is a report on work in progress — then with input for the whole group we can continue working on this.

Thank for opening the cans — I mean it, we need to understand or at least acknowledge the complexity.

 

In the 37th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 30th   FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig reviewed the proposals made by Oyvind and decided the following:
 
E41: to add to the scope note   a paragraph proposed by Oyvind
E35: to update the scope note. This HW is assigned to Oyvind
E42 Identifier:  to  keep this class and fix scope note
E44 Place Appellation : to Keep this class
E49 Time Appellation: to merge this class  with E50 Date.This HW is assigned to Oyvind
E51 Contact Point: Keep and harmonize this with Parthenos. This HW is assigned to Oyvind GB
E75 Conceptual Object Appellation:  to  delete this class
E82 Actor Appellation:to  delete this class
E46 Section definition:to  delete this class
 
Also the crm-sig decided that when a property or a class is deleted, it should be removed from the text  its super/sub classes sections, scope note and examples, but the title of the class/property should   be kept with a note saying ‘deprecated’ use X instead, the properties that go with these classes are also deprecated
 
Berlin, December 2016
 

posted by Ovind on 24/3/2017

Dear all,

Here is my homework for Issue 260:

1. E35: Accepted the comment made by Oyvind that the scope note of E35 Title is misleading, since it refers to something functioning a title, not having the form of a title, it is decided to keep the Title, to update scope note. This HW is assigned to Oyvind

I have changed the first paragraph of the scope note

Old scope note for E35:

> This class comprises the names assigned to works, such as texts, artworks or pieces of music.

> Titles are proper noun phrases or verbal phrases, and should not be confused with generic object names such as “chair”, “painting” or “book” (the latter are common nouns that stand for instances of E55 Type). Titles may be assigned by the creator of the work itself, or by a social group.

> This class also comprises the translations of titles that are used as surrogates for the original titles in different social contexts.

Proposed new version:

“This class comprises textual strings that within a cultural context can be clearly identified as titles due to their form. Being a subclass of E41 Appellation, E35 Title can only be used when such a string is actually are used as a title of a work, such as a text, an artwork, or a piece of music.

Titles are proper noun phrases or verbal phrases, and should not be confused with generic object names such as “chair”, “painting” or “book” (the latter are common nouns that stand for instances of E55 Type). Titles may be assigned by the creator of the work itself, or by a social group.

This class also comprises the translations of titles that are used as surrogates for the original titles in different social contexts.”

—————————

2. E49 Time Appellation: to keep but it should be merged with Date and it should be decided if they keep the same name (Oyvind)

E50 Date should be marked obsolete. I have changed the inheritance, the first paragraph of the scope note, and added two examples.

Old definition of E49 Time Appellation:

> Subclass of : E41 Appellation
> Superclass of: E50 Date
>
> Scope Note:
>
> This class comprises all forms of names or codes, such as historical periods which are characteristically used to refer to a specific E52 Time-Span. This includes human- and machine readable dates and timestamps.

> The instances of E49 Time Appellation may vary in their degree of precision, and they may be relative to other time frames, “Before Christ” for example. Instances of E52 Time-Span are often defined by reference to a cultural period or an event e.g. ‘the duration of the Ming Dynasty’.

> Examples:
>  • “Meiji” [Japanese term for a specific time-span]
>  • “1st half of the XX century”
>  • “Quaternary”
>  • “1215 Hegira” [a date in the Islamic calendar]
>  • “Last century”

New definition of E49 Time Appellation:

Subclass of : E41 Appellation

Scope Note:

This class comprises all forms of names or codes, such as historical periods, and dates, which are characteristically used to refer to a specific E52 Time-Span.

The instances of E49 Time Appellation may vary in their degree of precision, and they may be relative to other time frames, “Before Christ” for example. Instances of E52 Time-Span are often defined by reference to a cultural period or an event e.g. ‘the duration of the Ming Dynasty’.

Examples:
• “Meiji” [Japanese term for a specific time-span]
• “1st half of the XX century”
• “Quaternary”
• “1215 Hegira” [a date in the Islamic calendar]
• “Last century”
• “2013-10-05”
• “Mon May 19 22:39:23 CET 2014”