What fields do we need to manage the identity of an actor?

[illip]

This issue must be documented, it has been created in order to remember to make a decision about it. CHIN is seeking for use cases to determine whether or not we need this ambiguous field.

Currently, CHIN manages the identity using 5 different fields: Gender, Nationality, Cultural Affiliation, Nationhood, and Community all with their proper definition. Reading the Cataloguing Cultural Objects (CCO) documentation, it feels like several concepts reside exist under Culture:

Terms for culture or nationality may be adjectival forms of a name for a tribe, band, ethnic group, linguistic group, cultural group, civilization, religious group, nation, country, city-state, continent, or general region.

The nationality field may also record culture, race, or ethnicity, which may be controlled by the Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) or another appropriate source (and recorded in the Concept Authority).

Rules for Nationality: Record a term referring to the national, geopolitical, cultural, or ethnic origins or affiliation of the person or corporate body.

What is the best approach for CHIN? Should we limit the number of Identity fields to what we currently have or should we break down those terms and find their specific definition (if it exists). Are there some concepts that we should avoid completely?

Some interesting info might be found on Statistics Canada's website.

[Christian-McCord]

Au Musée McCord nous avons développé une liste d'autorités de sujets pour décrire les personnes représentées dans les peintures, les sculptures, les illustrations et les photographies, etc. Les 5 champs qu'utilise CHIN: Gender, Nationality, Cultural Affiliation, Nationhood, and Community, recoupent ces autorités dans la zone sujet et ne sont pas distincts. Le genre est par défaut précisé pour les portraits individuels et les petits groupes de personne, le terme "mixed" signifie que les deux genres sont représentés. Les autres champs sont précisés lorsque l'information est inscrite sur l'objet. Nous précisons l'origine ethnique lorsque c'est possible, mais les termes utilisés doivent être un peu mieux structurés et aussi mis à jour en regard des sensibilités actuelles. Voici quelques exemples:

Dans ce cas, on retrouve plus d'informations sur l'identité de l'Actor dans le champ Notes: "Robert Scott Duncanson (1821-1872) artist of African American descent. Duncanson was born in Seneca County, in northern New York state, of Scottish Canadian and African American parents. He grew up and was educated in Canada where he developed a love for literature, whose themes inspired much of his work. [...]

Voici un aperçu de la liste d'autorités concernant les portraits photographiques. Les mots-clés, ou descripteurs, sont ordonnés ainsi afin de permettre des macro recherches par chaînes de caractères. "Informal" signifie que le portrait n'a pas été réalisé en studio. À la suite de ces descripteurs, on retrouve le nom de l'individu, la nationalité lorsque connue et lorsque non-canadienne. Le terme "Indian" subsiste pour des raisons historiques, mais on a ajouté le mot-clé "aboriginal" que l'on va bientôt changer pour "Indigenous".

etc.

[illip]

The semantic committee reviewed this issue during its last meeting, which was held on 2021/06/10. No decision has been made yet, but here are some items to consider:

1. The 5 identity aspects that we describe in the model (Gender, Nationality, Cultural Affiliation, Nationhood, Community) appear relevant to the entire committee. We have not discussed Group Type, but this pattern validation should obviously be part of this review.
2. The committee is also wondering whether the "Identity" category is necessary. If so, the term should be defined, if not it might be enough to link our 5 aspects directly under the Identification category.
3. The big question concerns the applicability of these future patterns, although they seem relevant to both institutions and researchers, the right to privacy and the provenance of information must be considered. Although it may be important to know if an artist belongs to the LGBTQ+ community in order to create an exhibition on this subject, a false identification will necessarily impact the person concerned.
4. The current patterns (Types and Group Belongings) will have to be reviewed in the light of our forthcoming discussions on the subject.

The goal for the 2021/07/15 meeting will be to determine the steps to be taken in the coming months to ensure effective and respectful patterns. We are not aiming for definitive patterns for version 2.2.

[illip]

The semantic committee discussed briefly this issue during its last meeting, which was held on 2021/07/15. Here are our official decisions:

1. The aforementioned items remain relevant.
2. The identity patterns will not be defined in version 2.2 and their development will be postponed to version 2.4.
3. Even if these patterns are not part of 2.2, we will still explain why. If we remove the patterns without explaining the reason, it could be implied that these patterns have no place in the model which is obviously not the case. It is therefore important to indicate that the development of these patterns is postponed because there are many ethical considerations and that CHIN must base its decisions on solid research and expertise.

When the third bullet will be done, this issue will be moved to 2.4 project.