search

chin-rcip / collections-model

Linked Open Data Development at the Canadian Heritage Information Network - Développement en données ouvertes et liées au Réseau canadien d'information sur le patrimoine
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
12 stars 1 forks source link

E39 Creators Identification #7

Open chin-rcip opened 4 years ago

chin-rcip commented 4 years ago

Philippe Michon Jul 18th at 8:06 AM We already discussed this topic a couple of months ago but I think it's important to bring it back in the issues. We need a way to identify which e39 are makers. For instance, we need a way to avoid having a bunch of associations (groups) or family members (persons) that are not makers in the future "makers" list. Probably a simple p2 has type with value makers, but I think it's important.

Stephen Hart 1 month ago Do we really need to identify makers from others? I mean, it’s simply the difference between E39 Actor who participated in one or more Production Event and the others who don’t

Philippe Michon 1 month ago Are we sure that we are going to have necessarly a production event linked to each of our makers?

heather 1 month ago For many of the artists in AIC (for example), we don't have any info on a specific production event. And no link to a specific object that they made...we may have details of production event and the object they created at some point, but for now (for many of them) all we know is that they are a maker, and some bio info

Stephen Hart 1 month ago @heather You're right, my "simple" way of doing won't work for AiC. I'm still not convinced in adding a 'E55 Type' to the makers, as I find that artificial (and what tag do we put on groups or family members?).

Philippe Michon 1 month ago Semantically, the best option would be to infer the "maker" tag based on the role of the actor. In reality, I'm not sure is going to be doable. Also, I don't think we absolutely need to add this kind of tag for each actor. Actor A is tagged "maker" but Actor B is not.

chin-rcip commented 4 years ago

Is it still an issue?

KarineLeonardBrouillet commented 4 years ago

I think it is still an issue considering that we have not defined what constitutes a maker. What would a maker or creator encompass as a concept here? Would it be the actor(s) who physically make an object? Or the ideator behind a concept? In more complex cases such as co-productions, workshops, or ateliers how would the creator be defined? It is easier if we have a production event that we link to named actors, but how do we proceed when we have a group as well as a constellation of persons? How will the maker status be assigned? To me, this is an issue similar to the handling of priorities because assigning a maker status seems like it would involve a level of uncertainty or inaccuracy that we might want to define or clarify? I am not sure if this is still an open issue for the target model per se but it might be a good idea to define what we mean by maker nonetheless. I will try to draft a definition shortly and will post it here. We should also determine whether such a definition should be added to the reference documentation whether as a relevant information or dedicated field?

KarineLeonardBrouillet commented 4 years ago

Thinking more about it maybe it would be possible to infer the maker status as well without relying entirely on the production event. For example, it could be done with an either-or kind of conditional statement where a creator is any actor that is linked to a production event or has a creative occupation. In that last case, we would have a list of relevant occupations extracted from the more complete occupations one... would that work?

stephenhart8 commented 4 years ago

I do prefer your second solution, to not only rely on production event. More over, it would be much easier to have a broader sens of maker, as it will be easier to manage more complex situation.

KarineLeonardBrouillet commented 4 years ago

Here is what I suggest as a Creator definition:

Scope This designates a participant, either an individual or an organization, who has designed, made, formed, set up, performed or brought into existence a culturally meaningful work or activity through means of imagination, invention, expression or execution.

Comments:

References Art & Architecture Thesaurus. 2019. ‘Creators’. Art & Architecture Thesaurus Online Full Record Display. 2019. http://www.getty.edu/vow/AATFullDisplay?find=creator&logic=AND&note=&english=N&prev_page=1&subjectid=300386174. CIDOC CRM. n.d. ‘F28 Expression Creation’. Accessed 8 November 2019. http://www.cidoc-crm.org/f28-expression-creation. Free Dictionary. 2019. ‘Creator’. In The Free Dictionary. Huntingdon Valley, PA: Farlex. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Creator.

stephenhart8 commented 4 years ago

That's perfect for me

eecanning commented 4 years ago

+1 for @KarineLeonardBrouillet's definition.

Regarding the modelling of this, have you looked at the George O'Keefe Museum's approach, as they are reconciling roles and definitions of various actors in different occupations and roles? For example, here's the .json for Alfred Stieglitz: https://github.com/okeeffemuseum/collections-data/blob/master/json/actor/person/260.json Is there something about this modelling that we can leverage as a solution to this need?

VladimirAlexiev commented 4 years ago

I agree with Philippe that a simple "Creator" flag is needed.

illip commented 4 years ago

@VladimirAlexiev Thank you again for your recommendation. That said, do you think it would be possible to infer the fact that Actor X is a "Creator" following @KarineLeonardBrouillet's second option?

I would like to avoid to apply a simple "Creator" tag if we could manage it another way. For the moment, the fact that an actor is a "creator" when he's related to at least one production event or a creative occupation seems to work theoretically because:

  1. All of our E12_Production are related to creative productions. If this change we would need to be more specific about the kind of production.
  2. We might not be able to get "creator" concept directly from an external occupations vocabulary but I'm sure we can figure out a few "high-concepts" that could define our "creator" concept.

There are two things where I'm not sure:

  1. How to identify that a member of a group is a creator? If a group is a participant in a production event, this group is a creator but could we always state that all the members of this group are also "creators"?
  2. Would it be possible that a museum documents a creator without having creative occupation or production event data? If we hope to use an automated way, we might need to state that these descriptors are mandatory in order to be able to display the creators properly on CiC interface.
VladimirAlexiev commented 4 years ago

linked to a production event or has a creative occupation

That will work, to set the Creator flag en-masse with a batch SPARQL update.

we would have a list of relevant occupations extracted

Such list can be populated from the occupations of people who have a Production event ("confirmed Creators"). But some inspection/filtering may be needed. Eg if someone who's "accountant, painter" has Painted something, we don't want to conclude that "accountants" is a creative occupation.

How to identify that a member of a group is a creator

If the group is a Creator (eg an art collective), then every member is a Creator (presumably he would not have been accepted as member of that group otherwise).

Would it be possible that a museum documents a creator without having creative occupation or production event

I think this can also happen, so the Creator flag should be inclusive, i.e. allow any of these alternatives.

Maybe also relevant to consider: if someone created something occasionally, should he be considered a Creator? Eg many royalty engaged in the arts, in an amateur capacity. Should they be considered Creators or non-Creators? (Note: US NGA has a category "sitters" for people found in portraits)

stephenhart8 commented 4 years ago

I think it is indeed best to have some kind of way to infer that someone is a Creator through the production event.

@VladimirAlexiev You are right that we would need some filtering, as some production event may not lead to a cultural object, or that someone participated in the production event in other ways (as a model for example).

How to identify that a member of a group is a creator

If the group is a Creator (eg an art collective), then every member is a Creator (presumably he would not have been accepted as member of that group otherwise)

That would not be the case of some groups, for example some manufacturing company where the CEO of the company is not a creator. Again, maybe some filtering would be needed.

@VladimirAlexiev Indeed the occasional creators should be documented, but maybe not as Creators, especially if they are not known for their artistic production.

VladimirAlexiev commented 4 years ago

Good thinking!