[Crm-sig] groups and relations between persons

Christian-Emil Smith Ore c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no
Tue Aug 5 14:28:41 EEST 2014


I think we should accept that ethnographical collections and others have a need for expressing relations between persons. To make the CRM simple we should model a schematic way to express such. A solution could be to say that these relations are defined by humans and create a relation class somewhere under conceptual objects.
C-E

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of martin
>Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 12:33 PM
>To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] groups and relations between persons
>
>Anthropologically, there seem to be an immense number of variants of
>kinship, as George Lakoff describes.
>So, the challenge for us is to find the generalizations that would be relevant
>for recall in an intergated information system. What would be a reasonable
>distinction in a query? When would be the answer set too large?
>I read that all Chinese with last name Wang (or another) assume a sort of
>kinship, of "we". Where are the limits to "minorities" ? Are there reasonable
>delimiters to more immediate forms of kinship?
>
>Could we classify social relations by
>* kinship & kinship equivalent (like adoption, marriage),
>         - immediate ??
>         - relevant for social interaction
>         - spiritual/political relevance
>* by business & interest groups,
>* by acquaintance&neighborhood,
>* by employment
>* by dependency of power (liege, slavery, military) ????
>
>Which of these could appear as a selection in a query?
>Do we have research questions and queries for prosopography and other
>social relations?
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Martin
>
>
>On 5/8/2014 9:54 πμ, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
>> Dear Detlev,
>> 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.
>>
>> C-E
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of
>>> Detlev Balzer
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 8:11 AM
>>> To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] groups and relations between persons
>>>
>>> Dear Christian-Emil,
>>>
>>> by the way, a more modest approach to prosopography (compared to
>>> snapdrgn) has been taken here:
>>>
>>> http://d-nb.info/standards/elementset/agrelon.owl
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Detlev
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>> C-E
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> http://edd.uio.no/artiklar/DH2014/C-E_Ore_prosopography.pdf ).
>>>>>> 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 group.
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Christian-Emil
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>>>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>   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
>>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
>
>--
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>  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
>http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list