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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Detlev >Balzer >Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 8:11 AM >To: [email protected] >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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> martin >>> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 3:31 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> 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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | >>> Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | >>> | Email: [email protected] | >>> | >>> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Crm-sig mailing list >> [email protected] >> 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 >[email protected] >http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
