[Crm-sig] groups and relations between persons
Christian-Emil Smith Ore
c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no
Tue Aug 5 09:54:37 EEST 2014
The agrelon demonstrates clearly that there is a lot of possible relations. It could be interesting to see the set of relations if one tried to model the traditional peasant family in Russia. Traditionally there is a very large numbers of terms for describing the relations in the extended family.
>From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Detlev
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 8:11 AM
>To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] groups and relations between persons
>by the way, a more modest approach to prosopography (compared to
>snapdrgn) has been taken here:
>Unfortunately, this hasn't yet made it beyond the proposal stage. It may,
>however, serve as an example of what kinds of relationships are considered
>important in the library sector.
>Am 04.08.2014 um 16:32 schrieb Christian-Emil Smith Ore:
>> 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.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of
>>> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 3:31 PM
>>> To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] groups and relations between persons
>>> Dear Christian-Emil,
>>> 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
>>> (actors). I gave a presentation about CRM and prosopography at the
>>> DH2014 workshop "Ontologies for prosopography" (see
>>> http://edd.uio.no/artiklar/DH2014/C-E_Ore_prosopography.pdf ).
>>>> The current CRM way to model relations between persons is to use the
>>> 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 group.
>>>> I was a little skeptical when this way of modeling relations where
>>> 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
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>Detlev Balzer, Mecklenburger Landstr. 5, D-23570 Lübeck Tel (+49/0)4502-
>8896495, Mobil (+49)0173-6231233 PGP Fingerprint 8E5F DCBD 2FC0 4058 86C2
>3FEC 8D55 ACCD 2D71 8095
>Crm-sig mailing list
>Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
More information about the Crm-sig