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:[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
_______________________________________________
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
