Issue 578: CRMSci O19 Property Labels Minor Correction?
Post by George Bruseker (22 October 2021)
I am manually correcting some ontology files (horror) and changing the nomenclature from the previous names for O19 which were:
has found object
(was object found by)
up until version 1.2.6 of the document.
Then it changed, rightly (mostly), to:
was object encountered at
which is how it has been ever since.
So, what's my problem? The inverse property label sounds like we named it poorly? Particularly the preposition 'at' has a locative flavour that to me would indicate that the object pointed at would be a place. The object pointed at, however, is of course the encounter event.
I do not remember if we made the choice above on purpose or if this is just a mistake, but reading it now it strikes me as not the best choice.
I think typically we would use 'by' (which is also problematic since sounds like it should point to an actor) or maybe 'in' which again sounds slightly locative, although might work better with an event.
Anyhow, does anyone else see this as a problem or is it just me?
Post by Melanie Roche (22 October 2021)
I share your concerns. Being unfamiliar with CRMsci in general and O19 in particular, when I first read your mesage I immediately assumed that the inverse property pointed to a place. As a non-native English speaker, I agree that there is a very strong locative flavour to the preposition "at", and it would be totally counter-intuitive to associate it with an event. I also feel the same applies (though less strongly) to "in".
If we want to exclude any kind of locative flavour, would the preposition "during" be appropriate, or would it only work for some events but not all?
Post by Rob Sanderson (22 October 2021)
+1 to changing it from at, which definitely implies location.
object_encountered_during seems good to me, thank you Melanie!
Post by Athina Kritsotaki (22 October 2021)
It is true it is linked to the Encounter Event, so, native speaker can find a better phrase for this
Post by Eleni Tsoulouha (22 October 2021)
Not that i m 100% confident concerning my intuitions for English, but I think that *during* is more suited for relations btw temporal entities (where the one serves as a temporal frame of sorts for the other) OR for relations btw temporal entities and their location-times (aka timespans). an encountered object is neither of those things, so maybe encountered in would do best??
Btw., i think that this reading is more consistent with how we've been using the adverbial throughout the CRM (again, i may be wrong).
all the best,
Post by Pierre Choffe (22 October 2021)
Would object_encountered_at_event be too long ?
Post by Franco Niccolucci (23 October 2021)
Dear George, all
“during” sounds fine.
In my opinion, not because “at” is locative and implies a place, which is not true: see e.g. "at present", "at midnight", "at some point in time". But because it implies precision, an exact point in time, at the time granularity level assumed, so that “at 5PM” means that arriving at 17:01 you are late.
Events always have a duration, even milliseconds. Thus, since the range of the inverse property is event, “during (event X)” sounds correct, “at (event X)” would not. “During" is also used in the scope note “... encountered or observed as present during the event”.
The story would be different - and “at” correct - if the range were an E61 Time Primitive.
Post by George Bruseker (27 January 2022)
Here is the homework for 578 in the CRM SIG google drive:
In the 52nd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 45th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting; GB presented the issue (misnomer for O19i was encountered at) and the alternative labels proposed:
- was object encountered during
- was object encountered in
- was object encountered through
- was object encountered by
Decision: change the inverse property label O19i encountered at to O19i encountered through; update CRMsci accordingly. Close issue