[Crm-sig] groups and relations between persons
Christian-Emil Smith Ore
c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no
Mon Aug 4 17:32:24 EEST 2014
Snapdrgn and the associated projects for prosopographical information (prosopographies) can be a case study and serve as a source of information/evidence. It is only a 2-3 years project. However, it can be a task to see how to map the snapdrgn ontology (which is expressed in rdf(s) I believe) to CRM. If we cannot do that, CRM needs adjustment or amendments. I will try to make the mapping and study the matter further.
>From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin
>Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 3:31 PM
>To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] groups and relations between persons
>I could quite well imagine having a sort of more general Group describing a
>social bond that would not involve members potentially "acting as one" or one
>speaking for them.
>In that case, that Group would no more be "one Actor".
>Would you regard http://snapdrgn.net/ as a good practical scope? Do you
>have other sources to map from?
>If we have a practical scope, we can model things.
>Do you propose an amendment to the CRM or a "social" extension?
>On 4/8/2014 2:38 μμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> This is not a part of the discussion in April about groups and
>> aggregations. It is groups as a way to model relations between persons
>(actors). I gave a presentation about CRM and prosopography at the DH2014
>workshop "Ontologies for prosopography" (see
>> The current CRM way to model relations between persons is to use the E74
>Group. A relation is modeled as an instance of E74 Group and the type of
>relation is expressed via P2 has Type. In a non-symmetric relation each person
>is linked via 'P107 is current or former member of ' specified by 'P107.1 kind of
>member'. This is all according to the scope note in CRM.
>> One may note that an instance of E74 Group used in this way represents an
>instance, an n-tuple, of a relation (seen as a set of n-tuples as in mathematics
>or in relational databases). The relation is identified by the type of the E74
>> I was a little skeptical when this way of modeling relations where introduced
>in CRM. My first thought was to define explicit, typed properties. After
>studying how for example the SNAP (Standards for Networking Ancient
>Prosopographies, http://snapdrgn.net/) tries to cope with their at least 65
>identified relations between persons by introducing a relation class in RDFS, I
>realized that the CRM solution is very good.
>> Since this is not meant to be a statement about me and CRM, I will raise two
>issues which I think need some discussion.
>> 1) E74 Group scope note "This class comprises any gatherings or
>organizations of two or more people that act collectively or in a similar way
>due to any form of unifying relationship.[...]" Will all related persons fulfill the
>requirement " act collectively or in a similar way due to any form of unifying
>relationship", that is, is E74 Group too narrow to be used to model all kind of
>relations between persons like the ones we find in prosopography?
>> 2) The modeling of relations by 'P107 is current or former member of '
>specified by 'P107.1 kind of member': If this is to be implemented in RDF(S),
>should we in the CRM definition recommend or at list hint to a good solution
>to implement the .1 E55 Type properties?
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
> | Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
> Center for Cultural Informatics |
> Information Systems Laboratory |
> Institute of Computer Science |
> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) |
> N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
> GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl |
>Crm-sig mailing list
>Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
More information about the Crm-sig