What is an org?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What is an org?

Martin Holmes
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Martin Mueller
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
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Ruchira Datta
In reply to this post by Martin Holmes


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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Paul Schaffner
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/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by Martin Mueller
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by Paul Schaffner
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Linde B.
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Martin Mueller
In reply to this post by Martin Holmes
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
   

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

richard light
In reply to this post by Martin Holmes
Martin,

I'll feed in what the museum community has come up with in this area.

The Spectrum collections management framework has Person, People and Organisation concepts. There is nothing so useful as a definition of these, but you can get a sense of the intention of People by its properties: People's culture; People's association; People's group; People's linguistic group. Person and Organisation are similar in intention to the corresponding TEI concepts.

The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model has this hierarchy of classes:

E39 Actor
    E21 Person
    E74 Group
        E40 Legal Body

The emphasis in the CRM is on the ability of these individuals and groups to "perform intentional actions ... for which someone may be held responsible". So it's very much a collections management perspective on the human race. :-)

Groups "act collectively or in a similar way due to any form of unifying relationship".

Best wishes,

Richard

On 10/07/2019 00:01, Martin Holmes 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


--
Richard Light
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Paul Schaffner
In reply to this post by Martin Mueller
Martin (Holmes, not Mueller),

I see the objection, but guess it's not clear to me what you want to do.

My working assumption (based in part on the intention of the TEI
and in part on the tendency of elements to expand to fit the space
allotted) is that the triple division of named entities into
person, place, and org is supposed to be more or less comprehensive,
rather like the old division of physical objects into 'animal, vegetable,
or mineral?' -- rough but intended to cover everything.

Moreover, it would seem that 'org' has something of the character
of a 'residual' -- it takes in whatever doesn't fit under person
(an individual) or place (an entity tied in some manner to a geographic
location). Hence 'org' really devolves into 'set' or 'group' other than
those consisting of one person or tied to a place.

Given that, do you wish

(a) to retain this basic 3-fold division, and rename 'org' because
the name is less than apt for many of its applications?

(b) to retain this basic 3-fold division, but subdivide the 'org'
third into subcategories, such as 'entities expressing what people do'
and 'entities expressing what people are'? (perhaps while also renaming
the parent category as in (a), with something more general.)

(c) to reject the 3-fold division, and add one or more more
kinds of entities that are sibling to the existing ones, creating
a 4- or 5- or n-fold categorisation of named entities? So you'd
keep org but add people alongside it?

(d) to deny that the existing scheme creates a 3-fold division at
all, rather a set of 3 clusters to which additional clusters can
be added.

I think (d) is really a form of (c) and poses the same problems
of backward compatibility. (b) is basically a 'syntactic sugar'
situation, in that your <people> is really just <org type="people">.

Or is there a fifth option?

pfs

--
Paul Schaffner  Digital Content & Collections
University of Michigan Libraries
[hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by Linde B.
Hi Linde,

Point taken; one of the things we usually do, and we'll do in this
project, is to create "standard" versions of the TEI which factor out
some of the more unusual or custom aspects of the project, replacing
them with more conventional markup. These custom elements would be
candidates for that kind of conversion. At least in that case we would
be able to add comments in the XML explaining the background. We might
also use the <equiv> mechanism to map <people> to <org>, etc.

But both of these strategies somewhat undermine the notion that peoples
are not orgs. :-)

Cheers,
Martin


On 2019-07-09 6:50 p.m., Linde B. wrote:

> 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]
> <mailto:[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]
>     <mailto:[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
>

--
------------------------------------------
Martin Holmes
UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by richard light
Thanks Richard; this distinction between People and Organization seems
exactly the one we want to make.

Do you have any examples of the groups assigned to the People concept,
as opposed to the Organization concept?

Cheers,
Martin

On 2019-07-10 2:45 a.m., Richard Light wrote:

> Martin,
>
> I'll feed in what the museum community has come up with in this area.
>
> The Spectrum collections management framework has Person, People and
> Organisation concepts. There is nothing so useful as a definition of
> these, but you can get a sense of the intention of People by its
> properties: People's culture; People's association; People's group;
> People's linguistic group. Person and Organisation are similar in
> intention to the corresponding TEI concepts.
>
> The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model has this hierarchy of classes:
>
> E39 Actor
>      E21 Person
>      E74 Group
>          E40 Legal Body
>
> The emphasis in the CRM is on the ability of these individuals and
> groups to "perform intentional actions ... for which someone may be held
> responsible". So it's very much a collections management perspective on
> the human race. :-)
>
> Groups "act collectively or in a similar way due to any form of unifying
> relationship".
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard
>
> On 10/07/2019 00:01, Martin Holmes 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
>>>
>>
> --
> *Richard Light*

--
------------------------------------------
Martin Holmes
UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by Martin Holmes
Hi Geoffrey,

On 2019-07-10 4:10 a.m., Geoffrey Williams wrote:
> Hi
>
> If you read ‘org’ as organised would this suit? Organisations are not
> just formal but groups of people with a tight or loose unity.

I'd rather not put myself in the position of trying to argue that our
First Nations researchers should agree to categorize themselves and
their ancestors using terms that make them uncomfortable because a
technical organization from the colonizing culture says they should,
even if I were armed with apparently unassailable logic (which I don't
think is the case). That would be unhappily reminiscent of the history
of settler/indigenous relations, which has involved an awful lot of
dictating to people who they are and where they belong. :-)

> In the BasNum project, we are trying to group affiliations of people
> cited in the Dictionnaire Universel 1701. Some, like Academie
> Française, are easy, others as ‘Les Messieurs de Port Royal’ or
> Protestants who studied at the Academie de Saumur less so. Thus, I
> would have thought that a tribe as organised unit would be
> negotiable.
>
> The defining characteristic of grumblers is that they will grumble
> whatever you choose.

Yes. I'm not really asking for ammunition to argue for <org>; I don't
feel that's right, and I'm resolved to use custom elements instead. I'm
looking for cases where people might have encountered the same
discomfort, perhaps in Australia, New Zealand, or the US, and how they
dealt with it.

Cheers,
Martin

> Best wishes
>
> Geoffrey
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
>> Le 9 juil. 2019 à 23:41, Martin Holmes <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by Paul Schaffner
Hi Paul,

I'm not really proposing anything; I was just asking if others had faced
this issue and how they'd dealt with it. If I were brave enough to
propose something, it would probably be along the lines of d), but I
don't think it would get much support, for all the reasons people have
articulated.

Cheers,
Martin

On 2019-07-10 7:01 a.m., Paul Schaffner wrote:

> Martin (Holmes, not Mueller),
>
> I see the objection, but guess it's not clear to me what you want to do.
>
> My working assumption (based in part on the intention of the TEI
> and in part on the tendency of elements to expand to fit the space
> allotted) is that the triple division of named entities into
> person, place, and org is supposed to be more or less comprehensive,
> rather like the old division of physical objects into 'animal, vegetable,
> or mineral?' -- rough but intended to cover everything.
>
> Moreover, it would seem that 'org' has something of the character
> of a 'residual' -- it takes in whatever doesn't fit under person
> (an individual) or place (an entity tied in some manner to a geographic
> location). Hence 'org' really devolves into 'set' or 'group' other than
> those consisting of one person or tied to a place.
>
> Given that, do you wish
>
> (a) to retain this basic 3-fold division, and rename 'org' because
> the name is less than apt for many of its applications?
>
> (b) to retain this basic 3-fold division, but subdivide the 'org'
> third into subcategories, such as 'entities expressing what people do'
> and 'entities expressing what people are'? (perhaps while also renaming
> the parent category as in (a), with something more general.)
>
> (c) to reject the 3-fold division, and add one or more more
> kinds of entities that are sibling to the existing ones, creating
> a 4- or 5- or n-fold categorisation of named entities? So you'd
> keep org but add people alongside it?
>
> (d) to deny that the existing scheme creates a 3-fold division at
> all, rather a set of 3 clusters to which additional clusters can
> be added.
>
> I think (d) is really a form of (c) and poses the same problems
> of backward compatibility. (b) is basically a 'syntactic sugar'
> situation, in that your <people> is really just <org type="people">.
>
> Or is there a fifth option?
>
> pfs
>

--
------------------------------------------
Martin Holmes
UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Megan Cytron
I'm analyzing a corpus of novels set in Madrid and have bumped against
these same constraints--but maybe for different reasons. In the end,
for lack of knowing any better, I've chosen to track
"collectives"--for both people and places, because I'm very interested
in both of these concepts.  <org> <person> and <place> don't seem to
fit, because these collectives are more nebulous
categories/generalizations that can refer back to or encompass orgs,
people and places:

<rs type="collective" subtype="person" ref="#COLGITANOS">gitanos</rs>
<rs type="collective" subtype="person" ref="#COLWOMEN #COLSPANISH">las
mujeres españolas</rs>
<rs type "collective" subtype="person"
ref="#COLNOBELWINNERS">ganadores del premio nobel</rs>
<rs type "collective" subtype="place"
ref="#COLTAVERNSCATOCHA">tabernas de la calle Atocha</rs>
<rs type "collective" subtype="place" ref="#COLLABSUSA">laboratorios
norteamericanos</rs>

I also considered:

<rs type="person" subtype="collective" ref="#COLWOMEN">las mujeres</rs>
<rs type="place" subtype "collective" ref="#COLLABSUSA">laboratorios
norteamericanos</rs>

I'm enjoying this discussion and definitely open to any ideas folks
might have about how best to do this.

Megan Cytron
Universidad Complutense de Madrid


P.S. Apologies for sending this to Martin twice!

El mié., 10 jul. 2019 a las 18:14, Martin Holmes (<[hidden email]>) escribió:
Hi Paul,

I'm not really proposing anything; I was just asking if others had faced
this issue and how they'd dealt with it. If I were brave enough to
propose something, it would probably be along the lines of d), but I
don't think it would get much support, for all the reasons people have
articulated.

Cheers,
Martin

On 2019-07-10 7:01 a.m., Paul Schaffner wrote:
> Martin (Holmes, not Mueller),
>
> I see the objection, but guess it's not clear to me what you want to do.
>
> My working assumption (based in part on the intention of the TEI
> and in part on the tendency of elements to expand to fit the space
> allotted) is that the triple division of named entities into
> person, place, and org is supposed to be more or less comprehensive,
> rather like the old division of physical objects into 'animal, vegetable,
> or mineral?' -- rough but intended to cover everything.
>
> Moreover, it would seem that 'org' has something of the character
> of a 'residual' -- it takes in whatever doesn't fit under person
> (an individual) or place (an entity tied in some manner to a geographic
> location). Hence 'org' really devolves into 'set' or 'group' other than
> those consisting of one person or tied to a place.
>
> Given that, do you wish
>
> (a) to retain this basic 3-fold division, and rename 'org' because
> the name is less than apt for many of its applications?
>
> (b) to retain this basic 3-fold division, but subdivide the 'org'
> third into subcategories, such as 'entities expressing what people do'
> and 'entities expressing what people are'? (perhaps while also renaming
> the parent category as in (a), with something more general.)
>
> (c) to reject the 3-fold division, and add one or more more
> kinds of entities that are sibling to the existing ones, creating
> a 4- or 5- or n-fold categorisation of named entities? So you'd
> keep org but add people alongside it?
>
> (d) to deny that the existing scheme creates a 3-fold division at
> all, rather a set of 3 clusters to which additional clusters can
> be added.
>
> I think (d) is really a form of (c) and poses the same problems
> of backward compatibility. (b) is basically a 'syntactic sugar'
> situation, in that your <people> is really just <org type="people">.
>
> Or is there a fifth option?
>
> pfs
>

--
------------------------------------------
Martin Holmes
UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
lou
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

lou
Thanks for your contribution to this discussion, particularly because it reminds us that the 3-fold distinction correctly identified by Paul -- between persons, places, and err everything else -- is precisely a three fold distinction amongst kinds of NAME, or referring expressions, or whatever you want to call them, and not really among entities in the world.  Obviously  we might also want to resolve these referencing strings, and hence need to codify data about some real or imaginary world entity, but that is secondary. The important thing is that in the text there are strings of words which we want to identify as referring to some entity in the real world. We choose arbitrarily to distinguish refererring strings which target persons from those which target places, and we choose also to distinguish strings which target groups of people rather than individuals. This says nothing at all about what sort of a "group" we are talking about, though obviously if you want to distinguish multinational companies from rock bands from Anatolian tribes attested by Herodotus (all of which are valid uses for orgName-- and therefore for org--  proposed by the Guidelines), you have @:type and @subtype to do so.  So I share the general puzzlement as to what exactly Martin would like to change. If the claim is that we can or should identify a fourth class of naming string, let's see its definition. If the claim is that "org/Name" is a rotten name for "reference to a group of people considered as a single entity for some reason", then fair enough, let's hear a better term. (Sorry, "group" is already taken...) 


On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 17:41, MEGAN CYTRON <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm analyzing a corpus of novels set in Madrid and have bumped against
these same constraints--but maybe for different reasons. In the end,
for lack of knowing any better, I've chosen to track
"collectives"--for both people and places, because I'm very interested
in both of these concepts.  <org> <person> and <place> don't seem to
fit, because these collectives are more nebulous
categories/generalizations that can refer back to or encompass orgs,
people and places:

<rs type="collective" subtype="person" ref="#COLGITANOS">gitanos</rs>
<rs type="collective" subtype="person" ref="#COLWOMEN #COLSPANISH">las
mujeres españolas</rs>
<rs type "collective" subtype="person"
ref="#COLNOBELWINNERS">ganadores del premio nobel</rs>
<rs type "collective" subtype="place"
ref="#COLTAVERNSCATOCHA">tabernas de la calle Atocha</rs>
<rs type "collective" subtype="place" ref="#COLLABSUSA">laboratorios
norteamericanos</rs>

I also considered:

<rs type="person" subtype="collective" ref="#COLWOMEN">las mujeres</rs>
<rs type="place" subtype "collective" ref="#COLLABSUSA">laboratorios
norteamericanos</rs>

I'm enjoying this discussion and definitely open to any ideas folks
might have about how best to do this.

Megan Cytron
Universidad Complutense de Madrid


P.S. Apologies for sending this to Martin twice!

El mié., 10 jul. 2019 a las 18:14, Martin Holmes (<[hidden email]>) escribió:
Hi Paul,

I'm not really proposing anything; I was just asking if others had faced
this issue and how they'd dealt with it. If I were brave enough to
propose something, it would probably be along the lines of d), but I
don't think it would get much support, for all the reasons people have
articulated.

Cheers,
Martin

On 2019-07-10 7:01 a.m., Paul Schaffner wrote:
> Martin (Holmes, not Mueller),
>
> I see the objection, but guess it's not clear to me what you want to do.
>
> My working assumption (based in part on the intention of the TEI
> and in part on the tendency of elements to expand to fit the space
> allotted) is that the triple division of named entities into
> person, place, and org is supposed to be more or less comprehensive,
> rather like the old division of physical objects into 'animal, vegetable,
> or mineral?' -- rough but intended to cover everything.
>
> Moreover, it would seem that 'org' has something of the character
> of a 'residual' -- it takes in whatever doesn't fit under person
> (an individual) or place (an entity tied in some manner to a geographic
> location). Hence 'org' really devolves into 'set' or 'group' other than
> those consisting of one person or tied to a place.
>
> Given that, do you wish
>
> (a) to retain this basic 3-fold division, and rename 'org' because
> the name is less than apt for many of its applications?
>
> (b) to retain this basic 3-fold division, but subdivide the 'org'
> third into subcategories, such as 'entities expressing what people do'
> and 'entities expressing what people are'? (perhaps while also renaming
> the parent category as in (a), with something more general.)
>
> (c) to reject the 3-fold division, and add one or more more
> kinds of entities that are sibling to the existing ones, creating
> a 4- or 5- or n-fold categorisation of named entities? So you'd
> keep org but add people alongside it?
>
> (d) to deny that the existing scheme creates a 3-fold division at
> all, rather a set of 3 clusters to which additional clusters can
> be added.
>
> I think (d) is really a form of (c) and poses the same problems
> of backward compatibility. (b) is basically a 'syntactic sugar'
> situation, in that your <people> is really just <org type="people">.
>
> Or is there a fifth option?
>
> pfs
>

--
------------------------------------------
Martin Holmes
UVic Humanities Computing and Media Centre
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

richard light
In reply to this post by Martin Holmes
On 10/07/2019 16:35, Martin Holmes wrote:
Thanks Richard; this distinction between People and Organization seems exactly the one we want to make.

Do you have any examples of the groups assigned to the People concept, as opposed to the Organization concept?

Martin,

I asked Collections Trust, and they said:

People as a concept came from the anthropology world, but it can also be used in an historic context. So it is used for groups such as tribes or other such groups. Wikipedia has it has Ethnic group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

 

So examples might be: Brigantes; Goths; Inca; Yoruba.

Richard


Cheers,
Martin

On 2019-07-10 2:45 a.m., Richard Light wrote:
Martin,

I'll feed in what the museum community has come up with in this area.

The Spectrum collections management framework has Person, People and Organisation concepts. There is nothing so useful as a definition of these, but you can get a sense of the intention of People by its properties: People's culture; People's association; People's group; People's linguistic group. Person and Organisation are similar in intention to the corresponding TEI concepts.

The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model has this hierarchy of classes:

E39 Actor
     E21 Person
     E74 Group
         E40 Legal Body

The emphasis in the CRM is on the ability of these individuals and groups to "perform intentional actions ... for which someone may be held responsible". So it's very much a collections management perspective on the human race. :-)

Groups "act collectively or in a similar way due to any form of unifying relationship".

Best wishes,

Richard

On 10/07/2019 00:01, Martin Holmes 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


-- 
*Richard Light*

--
Richard Light
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What is an org?

Duranti, Luciana

Dear Martin and Colleagues:

 

I am not a member of this specific community, but I follow this list out of pure interest.

 

It occurs to me that, in this regard, you might be interested in the diplomatics concept of person.

 

In diplomatics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatics), a person is an entity to which rights and duties are ascribed. There are two types of persons: natural (i.e. individual human beings, personne physique in French), and juridical (personne morale in French), which is an entity made up of natural persons who recognize each other as belonging to the same social group and abide by the same rules, which may be positive (i.e. written) law, written or unwritten regulations or procedures, traditions, beliefs, natural law, etc. A juridical person can be a business, an association, a committee, a nation, an ethnic group, a religious sect, a church… basically any social group that is made of individuals, but has rights and duties distinct from those of the individuals that belong to it. Often a juridical person is identified with a legal person but this is not always the case because a legal person must be recognized by positive law, while a juridical person only needs the recognition of its members (though all legal persons are also juridical persons). In the US, a similar concept is that of artificial person, but it is mostly used for corporations.

 

Medieval historians in the US are familiar with the concept of juridical person. Countries where diplomatics is a discipline regularly taught in universities (i.e. all European countries) use this concept on a regular basis. In my courses, I use it to identify the persons involved in the creation of a record (author, writer, addressee, originator, creator).

 

Feel free to ignore my suggestion if you do not find it useful.

 

All the best,

 

Luciana

 

Dr. Luciana Duranti
Professor | Archival Studies
iSchool (Library, Archival and Information Studies) 
The University of British Columbia | Vancouver Campus | Musqueam Traditional Territory

470-1961 East Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
Phone 604 822 2587 | Fax 604 822 6006
[hidden email] I www.slais.ubc.ca I www.lucianaduranti.ca
Director I Centre for the International Study of Contemporary Records and Archives
www.ciscra.org 

This message is confidential to the parties I intend it to serve.

 

 

 

From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Richard Light
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 11:31 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: What is an org?

 

On 10/07/2019 16:35, Martin Holmes wrote:

Thanks Richard; this distinction between People and Organization seems exactly the one we want to make.

Do you have any examples of the groups assigned to the People concept, as opposed to the Organization concept?

Martin,

I asked Collections Trust, and they said:

People as a concept came from the anthropology world, but it can also be used in an historic context. So it is used for groups such as tribes or other such groups. Wikipedia has it has Ethnic group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

 

So examples might be: Brigantes; Goths; Inca; Yoruba.

 

Richard


Cheers,
Martin

On 2019-07-10 2:45 a.m., Richard Light wrote:

Martin,

I'll feed in what the museum community has come up with in this area.

The Spectrum collections management framework has Person, People and Organisation concepts. There is nothing so useful as a definition of these, but you can get a sense of the intention of People by its properties: People's culture; People's association; People's group; People's linguistic group. Person and Organisation are similar in intention to the corresponding TEI concepts.

The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model has this hierarchy of classes:

E39 Actor
     E21 Person
     E74 Group
         E40 Legal Body

The emphasis in the CRM is on the ability of these individuals and groups to "perform intentional actions ... for which someone may be held responsible". So it's very much a collections management perspective on the human race. :-)

Groups "act collectively or in a similar way due to any form of unifying relationship".

Best wishes,

Richard

On 10/07/2019 00:01, Martin Holmes 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

 

 

-- 
*Richard Light*

 

--
Richard Light

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Martin Mueller

This is ingenious and interesting, but it depends very heavily on an “explicitation” of rights, properties, etc. that are exactly not the kind of thing that solves the problems of the folks who have trouble with <org> because <org> doesn’t look like a good term to use even as a wrapper for the things they are interested in. I actually don’t’ agree with them and think of <org> as sufficiently capacious and innocent to do the job. But they don’t, and I understand why they don’t.

 

From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]> on behalf of "Duranti, Luciana" <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: "Duranti, Luciana" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:28 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: What is an org?

 

Dear Martin and Colleagues:

 

I am not a member of this specific community, but I follow this list out of pure interest.

 

It occurs to me that, in this regard, you might be interested in the diplomatics concept of person.

 

In diplomatics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatics), a person is an entity to which rights and duties are ascribed. There are two types of persons: natural (i.e. individual human beings, personne physique in French), and juridical (personne morale in French), which is an entity made up of natural persons who recognize each other as belonging to the same social group and abide by the same rules, which may be positive (i.e. written) law, written or unwritten regulations or procedures, traditions, beliefs, natural law, etc. A juridical person can be a business, an association, a committee, a nation, an ethnic group, a religious sect, a church… basically any social group that is made of individuals, but has rights and duties distinct from those of the individuals that belong to it. Often a juridical person is identified with a legal person but this is not always the case because a legal person must be recognized by positive law, while a juridical person only needs the recognition of its members (though all legal persons are also juridical persons). In the US, a similar concept is that of artificial person, but it is mostly used for corporations.

 

Medieval historians in the US are familiar with the concept of juridical person. Countries where diplomatics is a discipline regularly taught in universities (i.e. all European countries) use this concept on a regular basis. In my courses, I use it to identify the persons involved in the creation of a record (author, writer, addressee, originator, creator).

 

Feel free to ignore my suggestion if you do not find it useful.

 

All the best,

 

Luciana

 

Dr. Luciana Duranti
Professor | Archival Studies
iSchool (Library, Archival and Information Studies) 
The University of British Columbia | Vancouver Campus | Musqueam Traditional Territory

470-1961 East Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
Phone 604 822 2587 | Fax 604 822 6006
[hidden email] I www.slais.ubc.ca I www.lucianaduranti.ca
Director I Centre for the International Study of Contemporary Records and Archives
www.ciscra.org 

This message is confidential to the parties I intend it to serve.

 

 

 

From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Richard Light
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 11:31 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: What is an org?

 

On 10/07/2019 16:35, Martin Holmes wrote:

Thanks Richard; this distinction between People and Organization seems exactly the one we want to make.

Do you have any examples of the groups assigned to the People concept, as opposed to the Organization concept?

Martin,

I asked Collections Trust, and they said:

People as a concept came from the anthropology world, but it can also be used in an historic context. So it is used for groups such as tribes or other such groups. Wikipedia has it has Ethnic group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

 

So examples might be: Brigantes; Goths; Inca; Yoruba.

 

Richard


Cheers,
Martin

On 2019-07-10 2:45 a.m., Richard Light wrote:

Martin,

I'll feed in what the museum community has come up with in this area.

The Spectrum collections management framework has Person, People and Organisation concepts. There is nothing so useful as a definition of these, but you can get a sense of the intention of People by its properties: People's culture; People's association; People's group; People's linguistic group. Person and Organisation are similar in intention to the corresponding TEI concepts.

The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model has this hierarchy of classes:

E39 Actor
     E21 Person
     E74 Group
         E40 Legal Body

The emphasis in the CRM is on the ability of these individuals and groups to "perform intentional actions ... for which someone may be held responsible". So it's very much a collections management perspective on the human race. :-)

Groups "act collectively or in a similar way due to any form of unifying relationship".

Best wishes,

Richard

On 10/07/2019 00:01, Martin Holmes 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

 

 

-- 
*Richard Light*

 

--
Richard Light

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What is an org?

Duranti, Luciana

Actually a juridical person exists if its members recognize their rights and duties with respect to such group, not even formally, but as part of a culture, a tradition, a belief…. It does include communities that are not “organized,” such as ethnic groups. This is one of the reasons why I included the French translation, personne morale, which in my mind conveys better the idea.  

 

From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Martin Mueller
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 7:41 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: What is an org?

 

This is ingenious and interesting, but it depends very heavily on an “explicitation” of rights, properties, etc. that are exactly not the kind of thing that solves the problems of the folks who have trouble with <org> because <org> doesn’t look like a good term to use even as a wrapper for the things they are interested in. I actually don’t’ agree with them and think of <org> as sufficiently capacious and innocent to do the job. But they don’t, and I understand why they don’t.

 

From: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" <[hidden email]> on behalf of "Duranti, Luciana" <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: "Duranti, Luciana" <[hidden email]>
Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 11:28 PM
To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
Subject: What is an org?

 

Dear Martin and Colleagues:

 

I am not a member of this specific community, but I follow this list out of pure interest.

 

It occurs to me that, in this regard, you might be interested in the diplomatics concept of person.

 

In diplomatics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatics), a person is an entity to which rights and duties are ascribed. There are two types of persons: natural (i.e. individual human beings, personne physique in French), and juridical (personne morale in French), which is an entity made up of natural persons who recognize each other as belonging to the same social group and abide by the same rules, which may be positive (i.e. written) law, written or unwritten regulations or procedures, traditions, beliefs, natural law, etc. A juridical person can be a business, an association, a committee, a nation, an ethnic group, a religious sect, a church… basically any social group that is made of individuals, but has rights and duties distinct from those of the individuals that belong to it. Often a juridical person is identified with a legal person but this is not always the case because a legal person must be recognized by positive law, while a juridical person only needs the recognition of its members (though all legal persons are also juridical persons). In the US, a similar concept is that of artificial person, but it is mostly used for corporations.

 

Medieval historians in the US are familiar with the concept of juridical person. Countries where diplomatics is a discipline regularly taught in universities (i.e. all European countries) use this concept on a regular basis. In my courses, I use it to identify the persons involved in the creation of a record (author, writer, addressee, originator, creator).

 

Feel free to ignore my suggestion if you do not find it useful.

 

All the best,

 

Luciana

 

Dr. Luciana Duranti
Professor | Archival Studies
iSchool (Library, Archival and Information Studies) 
The University of British Columbia | Vancouver Campus | Musqueam Traditional Territory

470-1961 East Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
Phone 604 822 2587 | Fax 604 822 6006
[hidden email] I www.slais.ubc.ca I www.lucianaduranti.ca
Director I Centre for the International Study of Contemporary Records and Archives
www.ciscra.org 

This message is confidential to the parties I intend it to serve.

 

 

 

From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Richard Light
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 11:31 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: What is an org?

 

On 10/07/2019 16:35, Martin Holmes wrote:

Thanks Richard; this distinction between People and Organization seems exactly the one we want to make.

Do you have any examples of the groups assigned to the People concept, as opposed to the Organization concept?

Martin,

I asked Collections Trust, and they said:

People as a concept came from the anthropology world, but it can also be used in an historic context. So it is used for groups such as tribes or other such groups. Wikipedia has it has Ethnic group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

 

So examples might be: Brigantes; Goths; Inca; Yoruba.

 

Richard


Cheers,
Martin

On 2019-07-10 2:45 a.m., Richard Light wrote:

Martin,

I'll feed in what the museum community has come up with in this area.

The Spectrum collections management framework has Person, People and Organisation concepts. There is nothing so useful as a definition of these, but you can get a sense of the intention of People by its properties: People's culture; People's association; People's group; People's linguistic group. Person and Organisation are similar in intention to the corresponding TEI concepts.

The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model has this hierarchy of classes:

E39 Actor
     E21 Person
     E74 Group
         E40 Legal Body

The emphasis in the CRM is on the ability of these individuals and groups to "perform intentional actions ... for which someone may be held responsible". So it's very much a collections management perspective on the human race. :-)

Groups "act collectively or in a similar way due to any form of unifying relationship".

Best wishes,

Richard

On 10/07/2019 00:01, Martin Holmes 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

 

 

-- 
*Richard Light*

 

--
Richard Light

12