Re: TEI-L Digest - 8 Jul 2019 to 9 Jul 2019 (#2019-147)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TEI-L Digest - 8 Jul 2019 to 9 Jul 2019 (#2019-147)

Kathryn Tomasek-2
I use <org/> for institutions, clubs, schools, even bits of government like Congress or state legislatures in the US.

Please let me know if this is tag abuse.

Best,
Kathryn

> On Jul 9, 2019, at 9:02 PM, TEI-L automatic digest system <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> There are 8 messages totaling 1332 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>  1. What is an org? (8)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:41:02 -0700
> From:    Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
> Subject: What is an org?
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm writing with a slightly unusual question about the semantics and
> import of element names.
>
> Our project The Colonial Despatches of BC and Vancouver Island is a
> large collection of colonial correspondence relating to the
> establishment and early development of British Columbia. We currently
> have a small team working on identifying and annotating the First
> Nations groups and individuals who appear in the documents. In the
> process of doing this, they're building a taxonomy of First Nations
> groups and affiliations.
>
> The conventional way to encode this would be using <listOrg> and <org>;
> "<org> (organization) provides information about an identifiable
> organization such as a business, a tribe, or any other grouping of people."
>
> However, the researchers working on the project are pretty uncomfortable
> with this. They quite rightly point out that First Nations peoples are
> not the same sort of thing as a football team or a merchant bank.
> They're not constituted or organized within a larger jurisdictional unit
> such as a province or a nation. The element name <org> just seems
> completely inappropriate.
>
> Even as I write this, I can hear in my imagination grumbly voices going
> on about political correctness and pointing out that the word "tribe" is
> right there in the definition of <org>. But I find myself very
> sympathetic to the researchers here; <org> seems wrong to me too. The
> words we use to describe the world and each other are important, and XML
> element names are a particularly heightened form of categorizing
> vocabulary; as tags they not only bear on the things they describe but
> actually encapsulate them. An organization is not the same thing as a
> people, and it seems to me a bit derogatory to apply it here.
>
> So I'm writing to ask two things:
>
>  - Has anyone else encountered this sort of an issue with <org>, and if
> so, how did you deal with it?
>
>  - Is there perhaps room for another element, somewhere in the space
> between <org> and <country>, that might be more appropriate here? In our
> project, we've created custom elements <listPeople>, <people> and
> <peopleName>.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> --
> ------------------------------------------
> Martin Holmes
> UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 9 Jul 2019 21:55:00 +0000
> From:    Martin Mueller <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: What is an org?
>
> I have been filling out forms ad nauseam for a post-doc appointment, and Max Weber's "iron cage of rationality" comes to my mind, which is as good a phrase as any to express the unease at words like 'organization' and especially its abbreviation 'org' in 'org-chart' and similar terms.
>
> That said, a look at the OED tells you that the root of 'organization' is 'organ', which is the Latin equivalen of Greek εργον, English 'work' or German 'Werk'. And 'organ'  is a fine word for the instrument, not to speak of 'organic' , which definitely sits outside of Weber's iron cage..
>
> I think <org> is a perfectly OK name for grouping the individuals who in one way or another, consciously or unconsciously are part of  set of activities that revolve around a shared purpose.  Associate it with the over and undertones of 'organic', and it may sound a lot better.
>
> On 7/9/19, 4:41 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Martin Holmes" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>    Hi all,
>
>    I'm writing with a slightly unusual question about the semantics and
>    import of element names.
>
>    Our project The Colonial Despatches of BC and Vancouver Island is a
>    large collection of colonial correspondence relating to the
>    establishment and early development of British Columbia. We currently
>    have a small team working on identifying and annotating the First
>    Nations groups and individuals who appear in the documents. In the
>    process of doing this, they're building a taxonomy of First Nations
>    groups and affiliations.
>
>    The conventional way to encode this would be using <listOrg> and <org>;
>    "<org> (organization) provides information about an identifiable
>    organization such as a business, a tribe, or any other grouping of people."
>
>    However, the researchers working on the project are pretty uncomfortable
>    with this. They quite rightly point out that First Nations peoples are
>    not the same sort of thing as a football team or a merchant bank.
>    They're not constituted or organized within a larger jurisdictional unit
>    such as a province or a nation. The element name <org> just seems
>    completely inappropriate.
>
>    Even as I write this, I can hear in my imagination grumbly voices going
>    on about political correctness and pointing out that the word "tribe" is
>    right there in the definition of <org>. But I find myself very
>    sympathetic to the researchers here; <org> seems wrong to me too. The
>    words we use to describe the world and each other are important, and XML
>    element names are a particularly heightened form of categorizing
>    vocabulary; as tags they not only bear on the things they describe but
>    actually encapsulate them. An organization is not the same thing as a
>    people, and it seems to me a bit derogatory to apply it here.
>
>    So I'm writing to ask two things:
>
>      - Has anyone else encountered this sort of an issue with <org>, and if
>    so, how did you deal with it?
>
>      - Is there perhaps room for another element, somewhere in the space
>    between <org> and <country>, that might be more appropriate here? In our
>    project, we've created custom elements <listPeople>, <people> and
>    <peopleName>.
>
>    Cheers,
>    Martin
>    --
>    ------------------------------------------
>    Martin Holmes
>    UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 9 Jul 2019 15:05:56 -0700
> From:    Ruchira Datta <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: What is an org?
>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 2:41 PM Martin Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm writing with a slightly unusual question about the semantics and
>> import of element names.
>>
>> Our project The Colonial Despatches of BC and Vancouver Island is a
>> large collection of colonial correspondence relating to the
>> establishment and early development of British Columbia. We currently
>> have a small team working on identifying and annotating the First
>> Nations groups and individuals who appear in the documents. In the
>> process of doing this, they're building a taxonomy of First Nations
>> groups and affiliations.
>>
>> The conventional way to encode this would be using <listOrg> and <org>;
>> "<org> (organization) provides information about an identifiable
>> organization such as a business, a tribe, or any other grouping of people."
>>
>> However, the researchers working on the project are pretty uncomfortable
>> with this. They quite rightly point out that First Nations peoples are
>> not the same sort of thing as a football team or a merchant bank.
>> They're not constituted or organized within a larger jurisdictional unit
>> such as a province or a nation. The element name <org> just seems
>> completely inappropriate.
>>
>> Even as I write this, I can hear in my imagination grumbly voices going
>> on about political correctness and pointing out that the word "tribe" is
>> right there in the definition of <org>. But I find myself very
>> sympathetic to the researchers here; <org> seems wrong to me too. The
>> words we use to describe the world and each other are important, and XML
>> element names are a particularly heightened form of categorizing
>> vocabulary; as tags they not only bear on the things they describe but
>> actually encapsulate them. An organization is not the same thing as a
>> people, and it seems to me a bit derogatory to apply it here.
>>
>> So I'm writing to ask two things:
>>
>>  - Has anyone else encountered this sort of an issue with <org>, and if
>> so, how did you deal with it?
>>
>>  - Is there perhaps room for another element, somewhere in the space
>> between <org> and <country>, that might be more appropriate here? In our
>> project, we've created custom elements <listPeople>, <people> and
>> <peopleName>.
>>
>
> As i was reading your email, i was thinking <people> would be more
> appropriate, and here that's exactly what you've done.
>
> Best,
> Ruchira
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Martin Holmes
>> UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 9 Jul 2019 18:29:14 -0400
> From:    Paul Schaffner <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: What is an org?
>
> As I recall, 'org' does not imply any placement in a hierarchy, any
> formal or legal status, or indeed, anything except perhaps plurality,
> though I imagine some memberless orgs might also qualify. Although
> the prose guidelines specify people, I don't see any reason why the
> tag shouldn't apply to fictional groups (say the characters from Toy
> Story), extraterrestrials, or even pets. As long as they have something
> in common and are capable of acting, or of being viewed as if acting,
> at least sometimes, jointly, then org can be applied. It might almost
> be regarded as insulting to real (i.e. organized) organizations that
> they have to share an element with the unorganized rabble (I imagine
> that 'rabble' itself can be an org). I don't think you propose the creation
> of a new element for every sort of grouping -- so you are proposing,
> what? simply renaming org? Maybe <grouping>?
>
> In general, I find it useful to put aside the immediate issue and
> think of all the entities that might be covered by a an element:
> it tends to remove one's personal stake in the results. So which
> of the following is NOT an 'org':
>
> Clan Howard
> The Irish diaspora
> The French Foreign Legion
> People named Smith
> Foresters
> Fans of Man City (null set)
> Southpaws
> Morning people
> Skiers
> Amateurs
> The laity
> TEI Council
> Former Baptists
> Particular Baptists (that's both a denomination and a theological position)
> Romantics
> The C-suite
> Brexiteers
> Re-enacters
> Machinists
> Union members
> Unionists
> Mystics
> Fools
> The homeless
> The Kurdish nation
> Sophists
> Sophisticates
> Klingons
> The Resistance
> Them. Us.
>
> pfs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, at 18:12, Ruchira Datta wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 2:41 PM Martin Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm writing with a slightly unusual question about the semantics and
>>> import of element names.
>>>
>>> Our project The Colonial Despatches of BC and Vancouver Island is a
>>> large collection of colonial correspondence relating to the
>>> establishment and early development of British Columbia. We currently
>>> have a small team working on identifying and annotating the First
>>> Nations groups and individuals who appear in the documents. In the
>>> process of doing this, they're building a taxonomy of First Nations
>>> groups and affiliations.
>>>
>>> The conventional way to encode this would be using <listOrg> and <org>;
>>> "<org> (organization) provides information about an identifiable
>>> organization such as a business, a tribe, or any other grouping of people."
>>>
>>> However, the researchers working on the project are pretty uncomfortable
>>> with this. They quite rightly point out that First Nations peoples are
>>> not the same sort of thing as a football team or a merchant bank.
>>> They're not constituted or organized within a larger jurisdictional unit
>>> such as a province or a nation. The element name <org> just seems
>>> completely inappropriate.
>>>
>>> Even as I write this, I can hear in my imagination grumbly voices going
>>> on about political correctness and pointing out that the word "tribe" is
>>> right there in the definition of <org>. But I find myself very
>>> sympathetic to the researchers here; <org> seems wrong to me too. The
>>> words we use to describe the world and each other are important, and XML
>>> element names are a particularly heightened form of categorizing
>>> vocabulary; as tags they not only bear on the things they describe but
>>> actually encapsulate them. An organization is not the same thing as a
>>> people, and it seems to me a bit derogatory to apply it here.
>>>
>>> So I'm writing to ask two things:
>>>
>>> - Has anyone else encountered this sort of an issue with <org>, and if
>>> so, how did you deal with it?
>>>
>>> - Is there perhaps room for another element, somewhere in the space
>>> between <org> and <country>, that might be more appropriate here? In our
>>> project, we've created custom elements <listPeople>, <people> and
>>> <peopleName>.
>>
>> As i was reading your email, i was thinking <people> would be more
>> appropriate, and here that's exactly what you've done.
>>
>> Best,
>> Ruchira
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martin
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>> Martin Holmes
>>> UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>
> --
> Paul Schaffner  Digital Content & Collections
> University of Michigan Libraries
> [hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 9 Jul 2019 15:44:08 -0700
> From:    Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: What is an org?
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> If pure etymology were the way we customarily understand words, I would
> agree with you. But among the OED's definitions are these:
>
> <quote>
> The action or process of organizing, ordering, or putting into
> systematic form; the arrangement and coordination of parts into a
> systematic whole; spec. the action of banding together or gathering
> support for a political cause.
>
> [...]
>
> An organized body of people with a particular purpose, as a business,
> government department, charity, etc.
>
> [...]
>
> The action or process of organizing, ordering, or putting into
> systematic form; the arrangement and coordination of parts into a
> systematic whole; spec. the action of banding together or gathering
> support for a political cause.
> </quote>
>
> This all suggests a conscious choice to form a group for a shared
> purpose; and I don't think that's what being a people means. How
> comfortable would you be with, for example:
>
> <org>
>   <orgName>Men</orgName>
> </org>
>
> or
>
> <org>
>   <orgName>Left-handed people</orgName>
> </org>
>
> or
>
> <org>
>   <orgName>People with size 8 feet</orgName>
> </org>
>
> These are not organizations, although they certainly fit the rather
> weasely TEI definition "any other grouping of people". These are not
> "peoples" either, of course, but they share the characteristic of being
> something you _are_ rather than something you _do_.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
>> On 2019-07-09 2:55 p.m., Martin Mueller wrote:
>> I have been filling out forms ad nauseam for a post-doc appointment, and Max Weber's "iron cage of rationality" comes to my mind, which is as good a phrase as any to express the unease at words like 'organization' and especially its abbreviation 'org' in 'org-chart' and similar terms.
>>
>> That said, a look at the OED tells you that the root of 'organization' is 'organ', which is the Latin equivalen of Greek εργον, English 'work' or German 'Werk'. And 'organ'  is a fine word for the instrument, not to speak of 'organic' , which definitely sits outside of Weber's iron cage..
>>
>> I think <org> is a perfectly OK name for grouping the individuals who in one way or another, consciously or unconsciously are part of  set of activities that revolve around a shared purpose.  Associate it with the over and undertones of 'organic', and it may sound a lot better.
>>
>> On 7/9/19, 4:41 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Martin Holmes" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi all,
>>
>>     I'm writing with a slightly unusual question about the semantics and
>>     import of element names.
>>
>>     Our project The Colonial Despatches of BC and Vancouver Island is a
>>     large collection of colonial correspondence relating to the
>>     establishment and early development of British Columbia. We currently
>>     have a small team working on identifying and annotating the First
>>     Nations groups and individuals who appear in the documents. In the
>>     process of doing this, they're building a taxonomy of First Nations
>>     groups and affiliations.
>>
>>     The conventional way to encode this would be using <listOrg> and <org>;
>>     "<org> (organization) provides information about an identifiable
>>     organization such as a business, a tribe, or any other grouping of people."
>>
>>     However, the researchers working on the project are pretty uncomfortable
>>     with this. They quite rightly point out that First Nations peoples are
>>     not the same sort of thing as a football team or a merchant bank.
>>     They're not constituted or organized within a larger jurisdictional unit
>>     such as a province or a nation. The element name <org> just seems
>>     completely inappropriate.
>>
>>     Even as I write this, I can hear in my imagination grumbly voices going
>>     on about political correctness and pointing out that the word "tribe" is
>>     right there in the definition of <org>. But I find myself very
>>     sympathetic to the researchers here; <org> seems wrong to me too. The
>>     words we use to describe the world and each other are important, and XML
>>     element names are a particularly heightened form of categorizing
>>     vocabulary; as tags they not only bear on the things they describe but
>>     actually encapsulate them. An organization is not the same thing as a
>>     people, and it seems to me a bit derogatory to apply it here.
>>
>>     So I'm writing to ask two things:
>>
>>       - Has anyone else encountered this sort of an issue with <org>, and if
>>     so, how did you deal with it?
>>
>>       - Is there perhaps room for another element, somewhere in the space
>>     between <org> and <country>, that might be more appropriate here? In our
>>     project, we've created custom elements <listPeople>, <people> and
>>     <peopleName>.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Martin
>>     --
>>     ------------------------------------------
>>     Martin Holmes
>>     UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------
> Martin Holmes
> UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:01:38 -0700
> From:    Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: What is an org?
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I see you've picked out at one of the examples I thought of myself:
> Southpaws.
>
> But taking up your challenge of trying to decide which is or is not an
> organization, I think it would be fair to say that there's a continuum
> between things which are explicitly organized and codified to perform a
> particular purpose (the TEI Council, the French Foreign Legion) to those
> which are simply those sharing a particular trait (people named Smith,
> mystics). The continuum is between doing something and being something.
> Of course, if you are something (e.g. left-handed), you may well form an
> organization to do something related to it (campaign for Fender to make
> a broader range of left-handed Stratocasters). At that point, you're
> decidedly an organization, although your organization does not include
> the majority of left-handed people in the world, most of whom don't care
> about Stratocasters.
>
> In the same way, there are things which are indisputably First Nations
> organizations; the Cowichan Tribes have a .com website
> (https://www.cowichantribes.com/), a governance model,
> (https://www.cowichantribes.com/tribes-governance/), and even a link to
> "Member Services". But this is not the same thing at all as the historic
> Cowichan communities that existed prior to colonization, whose
> affiliations were "anchored in our families.  Through kinship, we are
> related to friends and neighbours throughout our traditional territory.
> Traditionally, the basis of Cowichan society was the household, which
> included members of several related families, all occupying a single
> longhouse." Perhaps such things are orgs, but they don't seem so to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 2019-07-09 3:29 p.m., Paul Schaffner wrote:
>> As I recall, 'org' does not imply any placement in a hierarchy, any
>> formal or legal status, or indeed, anything except perhaps plurality,
>> though I imagine some memberless orgs might also qualify. Although
>> the prose guidelines specify people, I don't see any reason why the
>> tag shouldn't apply to fictional groups (say the characters from Toy
>> Story), extraterrestrials, or even pets. As long as they have something
>> in common and are capable of acting, or of being viewed as if acting,
>> at least sometimes, jointly, then org can be applied. It might almost
>> be regarded as insulting to real (i.e. organized) organizations that
>> they have to share an element with the unorganized rabble (I imagine
>> that 'rabble' itself can be an org). I don't think you propose the creation
>> of a new element for every sort of grouping -- so you are proposing,
>> what? simply renaming org? Maybe <grouping>?
>>
>> In general, I find it useful to put aside the immediate issue and
>> think of all the entities that might be covered by a an element:
>> it tends to remove one's personal stake in the results. So which
>> of the following is NOT an 'org':
>>
>> Clan Howard
>> The Irish diaspora
>> The French Foreign Legion
>> People named Smith
>> Foresters
>> Fans of Man City (null set)
>> Southpaws
>> Morning people
>> Skiers
>> Amateurs
>> The laity
>> TEI Council
>> Former Baptists
>> Particular Baptists (that's both a denomination and a theological position)
>> Romantics
>> The C-suite
>> Brexiteers
>> Re-enacters
>> Machinists
>> Union members
>> Unionists
>> Mystics
>> Fools
>> The homeless
>> The Kurdish nation
>> Sophists
>> Sophisticates
>> Klingons
>> The Resistance
>> Them. Us.
>>
>> pfs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, at 18:12, Ruchira Datta wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 2:41 PM Martin Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>  I'm writing with a slightly unusual question about the semantics and
>>>>  import of element names.
>>>>
>>>>  Our project The Colonial Despatches of BC and Vancouver Island is a
>>>>  large collection of colonial correspondence relating to the
>>>>  establishment and early development of British Columbia. We currently
>>>>  have a small team working on identifying and annotating the First
>>>>  Nations groups and individuals who appear in the documents. In the
>>>>  process of doing this, they're building a taxonomy of First Nations
>>>>  groups and affiliations.
>>>>
>>>>  The conventional way to encode this would be using <listOrg> and <org>;
>>>>  "<org> (organization) provides information about an identifiable
>>>>  organization such as a business, a tribe, or any other grouping of people."
>>>>
>>>>  However, the researchers working on the project are pretty uncomfortable
>>>>  with this. They quite rightly point out that First Nations peoples are
>>>>  not the same sort of thing as a football team or a merchant bank.
>>>>  They're not constituted or organized within a larger jurisdictional unit
>>>>  such as a province or a nation. The element name <org> just seems
>>>>  completely inappropriate.
>>>>
>>>>  Even as I write this, I can hear in my imagination grumbly voices going
>>>>  on about political correctness and pointing out that the word "tribe" is
>>>>  right there in the definition of <org>. But I find myself very
>>>>  sympathetic to the researchers here; <org> seems wrong to me too. The
>>>>  words we use to describe the world and each other are important, and XML
>>>>  element names are a particularly heightened form of categorizing
>>>>  vocabulary; as tags they not only bear on the things they describe but
>>>>  actually encapsulate them. An organization is not the same thing as a
>>>>  people, and it seems to me a bit derogatory to apply it here.
>>>>
>>>>  So I'm writing to ask two things:
>>>>
>>>>  - Has anyone else encountered this sort of an issue with <org>, and if
>>>>  so, how did you deal with it?
>>>>
>>>>  - Is there perhaps room for another element, somewhere in the space
>>>>  between <org> and <country>, that might be more appropriate here? In our
>>>>  project, we've created custom elements <listPeople>, <people> and
>>>>  <peopleName>.
>>>
>>> As i was reading your email, i was thinking <people> would be more
>>> appropriate, and here that's exactly what you've done.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Ruchira
>>>>
>>>>  Cheers,
>>>>  Martin
>>>>  --
>>>>  ------------------------------------------
>>>>  Martin Holmes
>>>>  UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------
> Martin Holmes
> UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Tue, 9 Jul 2019 21:50:09 -0400
> From:    "Linde B." <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: What is an org?
>
> I am very sympathetic to the qualitative and ethical dimensions of the
> question, but (as a non-expert) it also occurs to me to wonder what happens
> to searching, indexing, mining, and displaying different things differently
> if the mark-up category is too baggy. Would this dimension not merit
> consideration?
>
> Best,
> Linde
>
>
> |》>*<♡>*<《|
> teeny tiny screen, big fat fingers
>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 19:01 Martin Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> I see you've picked out at one of the examples I thought of myself:
>> Southpaws.
>>
>> But taking up your challenge of trying to decide which is or is not an
>> organization, I think it would be fair to say that there's a continuum
>> between things which are explicitly organized and codified to perform a
>> particular purpose (the TEI Council, the French Foreign Legion) to those
>> which are simply those sharing a particular trait (people named Smith,
>> mystics). The continuum is between doing something and being something.
>> Of course, if you are something (e.g. left-handed), you may well form an
>> organization to do something related to it (campaign for Fender to make
>> a broader range of left-handed Stratocasters). At that point, you're
>> decidedly an organization, although your organization does not include
>> the majority of left-handed people in the world, most of whom don't care
>> about Stratocasters.
>>
>> In the same way, there are things which are indisputably First Nations
>> organizations; the Cowichan Tribes have a .com website
>> (https://www.cowichantribes.com/), a governance model,
>> (https://www.cowichantribes.com/tribes-governance/), and even a link to
>> "Member Services". But this is not the same thing at all as the historic
>> Cowichan communities that existed prior to colonization, whose
>> affiliations were "anchored in our families.  Through kinship, we are
>> related to friends and neighbours throughout our traditional territory.
>> Traditionally, the basis of Cowichan society was the household, which
>> included members of several related families, all occupying a single
>> longhouse." Perhaps such things are orgs, but they don't seem so to me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2019-07-09 3:29 p.m., Paul Schaffner wrote:
>>> As I recall, 'org' does not imply any placement in a hierarchy, any
>>> formal or legal status, or indeed, anything except perhaps plurality,
>>> though I imagine some memberless orgs might also qualify. Although
>>> the prose guidelines specify people, I don't see any reason why the
>>> tag shouldn't apply to fictional groups (say the characters from Toy
>>> Story), extraterrestrials, or even pets. As long as they have something
>>> in common and are capable of acting, or of being viewed as if acting,
>>> at least sometimes, jointly, then org can be applied. It might almost
>>> be regarded as insulting to real (i.e. organized) organizations that
>>> they have to share an element with the unorganized rabble (I imagine
>>> that 'rabble' itself can be an org). I don't think you propose the
>> creation
>>> of a new element for every sort of grouping -- so you are proposing,
>>> what? simply renaming org? Maybe <grouping>?
>>>
>>> In general, I find it useful to put aside the immediate issue and
>>> think of all the entities that might be covered by a an element:
>>> it tends to remove one's personal stake in the results. So which
>>> of the following is NOT an 'org':
>>>
>>> Clan Howard
>>> The Irish diaspora
>>> The French Foreign Legion
>>> People named Smith
>>> Foresters
>>> Fans of Man City (null set)
>>> Southpaws
>>> Morning people
>>> Skiers
>>> Amateurs
>>> The laity
>>> TEI Council
>>> Former Baptists
>>> Particular Baptists (that's both a denomination and a theological
>> position)
>>> Romantics
>>> The C-suite
>>> Brexiteers
>>> Re-enacters
>>> Machinists
>>> Union members
>>> Unionists
>>> Mystics
>>> Fools
>>> The homeless
>>> The Kurdish nation
>>> Sophists
>>> Sophisticates
>>> Klingons
>>> The Resistance
>>> Them. Us.
>>>
>>> pfs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, at 18:12, Ruchira Datta wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 2:41 PM Martin Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>  I'm writing with a slightly unusual question about the semantics and
>>>>>  import of element names.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Our project The Colonial Despatches of BC and Vancouver Island is a
>>>>>  large collection of colonial correspondence relating to the
>>>>>  establishment and early development of British Columbia. We currently
>>>>>  have a small team working on identifying and annotating the First
>>>>>  Nations groups and individuals who appear in the documents. In the
>>>>>  process of doing this, they're building a taxonomy of First Nations
>>>>>  groups and affiliations.
>>>>>
>>>>>  The conventional way to encode this would be using <listOrg> and
>> <org>;
>>>>>  "<org> (organization) provides information about an identifiable
>>>>>  organization such as a business, a tribe, or any other grouping of
>> people."
>>>>>
>>>>>  However, the researchers working on the project are pretty
>> uncomfortable
>>>>>  with this. They quite rightly point out that First Nations peoples
>> are
>>>>>  not the same sort of thing as a football team or a merchant bank.
>>>>>  They're not constituted or organized within a larger jurisdictional
>> unit
>>>>>  such as a province or a nation. The element name <org> just seems
>>>>>  completely inappropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Even as I write this, I can hear in my imagination grumbly voices
>> going
>>>>>  on about political correctness and pointing out that the word
>> "tribe" is
>>>>>  right there in the definition of <org>. But I find myself very
>>>>>  sympathetic to the researchers here; <org> seems wrong to me too. The
>>>>>  words we use to describe the world and each other are important, and
>> XML
>>>>>  element names are a particularly heightened form of categorizing
>>>>>  vocabulary; as tags they not only bear on the things they describe
>> but
>>>>>  actually encapsulate them. An organization is not the same thing as a
>>>>>  people, and it seems to me a bit derogatory to apply it here.
>>>>>
>>>>>  So I'm writing to ask two things:
>>>>>
>>>>>  - Has anyone else encountered this sort of an issue with <org>, and
>> if
>>>>>  so, how did you deal with it?
>>>>>
>>>>>  - Is there perhaps room for another element, somewhere in the space
>>>>>  between <org> and <country>, that might be more appropriate here? In
>> our
>>>>>  project, we've created custom elements <listPeople>, <people> and
>>>>>  <peopleName>.
>>>>
>>>> As i was reading your email, i was thinking <people> would be more
>>>> appropriate, and here that's exactly what you've done.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Ruchira
>>>>>
>>>>>  Cheers,
>>>>>  Martin
>>>>>  --
>>>>>  ------------------------------------------
>>>>>  Martin Holmes
>>>>>  UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Martin Holmes
>> UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 10 Jul 2019 03:47:32 +0000
> From:    Martin Mueller <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: What is an org?
>
> A "household", however loosely organized, is different from Southpaws. A lot of things get done, and keeping a household going is a lot of work even at the best of times. Ditto for keeping a ship afloat.  Households are deeply structured in deeply hierarchical ways, and its members have roles that they may not even be aware of until something disturbs them. In Sophocles' Antigone, Kreon is an "organizer" in a quasi-modern way. His "positive" law of denying burial to Polyneices stirs in Antigone a violent, but deeply "organic" response. Sisters bury their brothers. So it is a delusion to think that you can get away from 'organization' in the most neutral and descriptive sense of the word. If that is so, Linda B has a good point wondering "what happens to searching, indexing, mining, and displaying different things differently if the mark-up category is too baggy?"
>
> A colleague of mine at the University of Toronto many years said that "if it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change". Just what kinds of social relationships in this particular project are not adequately modeled by the current element listOrg and its children? I say 'adequately' rather than 'perfectly' because, as Wallace Stevens observed, "the squirming facts exceed the squamous mind" and XML is a very squamous thing. One might as well accept that.
>
>
>
> On 7/9/19, 6:01 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Martin Holmes" <[hidden email] on behalf of [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>    Hi Paul,
>
>    I see you've picked out at one of the examples I thought of myself:
>    Southpaws.
>
>    But taking up your challenge of trying to decide which is or is not an
>    organization, I think it would be fair to say that there's a continuum
>    between things which are explicitly organized and codified to perform a
>    particular purpose (the TEI Council, the French Foreign Legion) to those
>    which are simply those sharing a particular trait (people named Smith,
>    mystics). The continuum is between doing something and being something.
>    Of course, if you are something (e.g. left-handed), you may well form an
>    organization to do something related to it (campaign for Fender to make
>    a broader range of left-handed Stratocasters). At that point, you're
>    decidedly an organization, although your organization does not include
>    the majority of left-handed people in the world, most of whom don't care
>    about Stratocasters.
>
>    In the same way, there are things which are indisputably First Nations
>    organizations; the Cowichan Tribes have a .com website
>    (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cowichantribes.com_&d=DwICaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=SKL-9ddysXTb7_BbiE7RhNErrj2WAvX5DR8f6gPceNc&s=-mhtZCxvBlnHUxon1fHQE6f0jvpl9biAB00RIfyWcZE&e=), a governance model,
>    (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cowichantribes.com_tribes-2Dgovernance_&d=DwICaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=SKL-9ddysXTb7_BbiE7RhNErrj2WAvX5DR8f6gPceNc&s=1_TaPP_UQ4DlnWtkpdV64EDk3n3jjPugLGi6oD4S9Yo&e=), and even a link to
>    "Member Services". But this is not the same thing at all as the historic
>    Cowichan communities that existed prior to colonization, whose
>    affiliations were "anchored in our families.  Through kinship, we are
>    related to friends and neighbours throughout our traditional territory.
>    Traditionally, the basis of Cowichan society was the household, which
>    included members of several related families, all occupying a single
>    longhouse." Perhaps such things are orgs, but they don't seem so to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>>    On 2019-07-09 3:29 p.m., Paul Schaffner wrote:
>> As I recall, 'org' does not imply any placement in a hierarchy, any
>> formal or legal status, or indeed, anything except perhaps plurality,
>> though I imagine some memberless orgs might also qualify. Although
>> the prose guidelines specify people, I don't see any reason why the
>> tag shouldn't apply to fictional groups (say the characters from Toy
>> Story), extraterrestrials, or even pets. As long as they have something
>> in common and are capable of acting, or of being viewed as if acting,
>> at least sometimes, jointly, then org can be applied. It might almost
>> be regarded as insulting to real (i.e. organized) organizations that
>> they have to share an element with the unorganized rabble (I imagine
>> that 'rabble' itself can be an org). I don't think you propose the creation
>> of a new element for every sort of grouping -- so you are proposing,
>> what? simply renaming org? Maybe <grouping>?
>>
>> In general, I find it useful to put aside the immediate issue and
>> think of all the entities that might be covered by a an element:
>> it tends to remove one's personal stake in the results. So which
>> of the following is NOT an 'org':
>>
>> Clan Howard
>> The Irish diaspora
>> The French Foreign Legion
>> People named Smith
>> Foresters
>> Fans of Man City (null set)
>> Southpaws
>> Morning people
>> Skiers
>> Amateurs
>> The laity
>> TEI Council
>> Former Baptists
>> Particular Baptists (that's both a denomination and a theological position)
>> Romantics
>> The C-suite
>> Brexiteers
>> Re-enacters
>> Machinists
>> Union members
>> Unionists
>> Mystics
>> Fools
>> The homeless
>> The Kurdish nation
>> Sophists
>> Sophisticates
>> Klingons
>> The Resistance
>> Them. Us.
>>
>> pfs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, at 18:12, Ruchira Datta wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 2:41 PM Martin Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>  I'm writing with a slightly unusual question about the semantics and
>>>>  import of element names.
>>>>
>>>>  Our project The Colonial Despatches of BC and Vancouver Island is a
>>>>  large collection of colonial correspondence relating to the
>>>>  establishment and early development of British Columbia. We currently
>>>>  have a small team working on identifying and annotating the First
>>>>  Nations groups and individuals who appear in the documents. In the
>>>>  process of doing this, they're building a taxonomy of First Nations
>>>>  groups and affiliations.
>>>>
>>>>  The conventional way to encode this would be using <listOrg> and <org>;
>>>>  "<org> (organization) provides information about an identifiable
>>>>  organization such as a business, a tribe, or any other grouping of people."
>>>>
>>>>  However, the researchers working on the project are pretty uncomfortable
>>>>  with this. They quite rightly point out that First Nations peoples are
>>>>  not the same sort of thing as a football team or a merchant bank.
>>>>  They're not constituted or organized within a larger jurisdictional unit
>>>>  such as a province or a nation. The element name <org> just seems
>>>>  completely inappropriate.
>>>>
>>>>  Even as I write this, I can hear in my imagination grumbly voices going
>>>>  on about political correctness and pointing out that the word "tribe" is
>>>>  right there in the definition of <org>. But I find myself very
>>>>  sympathetic to the researchers here; <org> seems wrong to me too. The
>>>>  words we use to describe the world and each other are important, and XML
>>>>  element names are a particularly heightened form of categorizing
>>>>  vocabulary; as tags they not only bear on the things they describe but
>>>>  actually encapsulate them. An organization is not the same thing as a
>>>>  people, and it seems to me a bit derogatory to apply it here.
>>>>
>>>>  So I'm writing to ask two things:
>>>>
>>>>  - Has anyone else encountered this sort of an issue with <org>, and if
>>>>  so, how did you deal with it?
>>>>
>>>>  - Is there perhaps room for another element, somewhere in the space
>>>>  between <org> and <country>, that might be more appropriate here? In our
>>>>  project, we've created custom elements <listPeople>, <people> and
>>>>  <peopleName>.
>>>
>>> As i was reading your email, i was thinking <people> would be more
>>> appropriate, and here that's exactly what you've done.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Ruchira
>>>>
>>>>  Cheers,
>>>>  Martin
>>>>  --
>>>>  ------------------------------------------
>>>>  Martin Holmes
>>>>  UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>>
>
>    --
>    ------------------------------------------
>    Martin Holmes
>    UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of TEI-L Digest - 8 Jul 2019 to 9 Jul 2019 (#2019-147)
> **********************************************************