From: Syd B. <Syd_Bauman@Brown.edu> - 2008-02-18 20:01:47
|
We (the Brown University Women Writers Project) are planning on embarking on a mission to encode, among other things, some relationships among some of the people in our textbase. We are planning (at least for now) to store information about the people in TEI <person> elements. We are most likely going to store the relationships in TEI <relation> elements. So far so good. TEI <relation> elements have a name= attribute on which to provide the name of the relationship. In addition they have a type= attribute which may to categorize the relationship. So one possible set of values might look like: type= name= ----- ----- familial sibling familial parent familial spouse business employer business employee business client business consultant social friend social acquaintance social enemy Whatever, I'm just making these up off the top of my head, to put us all on the same page as to what these attributes are for. Note that <relation> does not bear a subtype= attribute. So we (the WWP) could, probably, come up with a reasonable set of relation names and categories ourselves. But the thought occurs to us that there must already be taxonomies of personal relationships out there in the world, no? |
From: Richard U. <lis...@gm...> - 2008-02-18 20:48:42
|
Hi Syd, The genealogy community has been busy defining a variety of standards for data interchange that might provide a good basis for identifying familial relationships. (see Cover Pages Genealogy http://xml.coverpages.org/genealogy.html) Also: Towards a Genealogical Ontology for the Semantic Web AHC 2005 (http://www.zandhuis.nl/sw/genealogy/ ) Genealogy and the Semantic Web (http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/mleahey/genealogyAndSemanticWebXHTML.htm ) The Friend-of-a-Friend (FOAF) community has struggled with some of these issues. There is a proposed relationship model http://vocab.org/relationship/ The conversations about this on the rdfDev forums is interesting and point towards some more abstract models developed by anthropologists for kinship relationships. The topic has also come up in the context of the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model See: Christian-Emil Ore, Social and family relations and the CIDOC CRM – some thoughts http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/docs/frbr_oo/frbr_docs/meeting_presentations/10th_meeting_presentations/Fam_relation_CRM.rtf (I'm getting an error message when I try to open this in Word, but TextEdit had no problem) Richard Urban, Doctoral Student Graduate School of Library & Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign rj...@ui... http://isrl.uiuc.edu/~rjurban On Feb 18, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Syd Bauman wrote: > We (the Brown University Women Writers Project) are planning on > embarking on a mission to encode, among other things, some > relationships among some of the people in our textbase. > > We are planning (at least for now) to store information about the > people in TEI <person> elements. We are most likely going to store > the relationships in TEI <relation> elements. > > So far so good. TEI <relation> elements have a name= attribute on > which to provide the name of the relationship. In addition they have > a type= attribute which may to categorize the relationship. > > So one possible set of values might look like: > type= name= > ----- ----- > familial sibling > familial parent > familial spouse > business employer > business employee > business client > business consultant > social friend > social acquaintance > social enemy > Whatever, I'm just making these up off the top of my head, to put us > all on the same page as to what these attributes are for. Note that > <relation> does not bear a subtype= attribute. > > So we (the WWP) could, probably, come up with a reasonable set of > relation names and categories ourselves. But the thought occurs to us > that there must already be taxonomies of personal relationships out > there in the world, no? > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Tei-ontology-sig mailing list > Tei...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tei-ontology-sig |
From: Christian-Emil O. <c.e...@ed...> - 2008-02-18 21:10:54
|
Hi I agree with Richard that one should check the genealogy communities. In general the family relation topic is very complex. It is a large social-anthropological field. The paper Richard is refering to, is a first suggestion to make a generic schema solution for the cidoc crm. If you first download the file and then open it, it opens ok. Regards, Christian-Emil On 18.02.2008 21:46, Richard Urban wrote: > Hi Syd, > > The genealogy community has been busy defining a variety of standards > for data interchange that might provide a good basis for identifying > familial relationships. (see Cover Pages Genealogy http://xml.coverpages.org/genealogy.html) > Also: > > Towards a Genealogical Ontology for the Semantic Web AHC 2005 (http://www.zandhuis.nl/sw/genealogy/ > ) > > Genealogy and the Semantic Web (http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/mleahey/genealogyAndSemanticWebXHTML.htm > ) > > The Friend-of-a-Friend (FOAF) community has struggled with some of > these issues. There is a proposed relationship model http://vocab.org/relationship/ > The conversations about this on the rdfDev forums is interesting > and point towards some more abstract models developed by > anthropologists for kinship relationships. > > The topic has also come up in the context of the CIDOC Conceptual > Reference Model > See: Christian-Emil Ore, Social and family relations and the CIDOC CRM > – some thoughts > http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/docs/frbr_oo/frbr_docs/meeting_presentations/10th_meeting_presentations/Fam_relation_CRM.rtf > (I'm getting an error message when I try to open this in Word, but > TextEdit had no problem) > > Richard Urban, Doctoral Student > Graduate School of Library & Information Science > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign > rj...@ui... > http://isrl.uiuc.edu/~rjurban > > On Feb 18, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Syd Bauman wrote: > >> We (the Brown University Women Writers Project) are planning on >> embarking on a mission to encode, among other things, some >> relationships among some of the people in our textbase. >> >> We are planning (at least for now) to store information about the >> people in TEI <person> elements. We are most likely going to store >> the relationships in TEI <relation> elements. >> >> So far so good. TEI <relation> elements have a name= attribute on >> which to provide the name of the relationship. In addition they have >> a type= attribute which may to categorize the relationship. >> >> So one possible set of values might look like: >> type= name= >> ----- ----- >> familial sibling >> familial parent >> familial spouse >> business employer >> business employee >> business client >> business consultant >> social friend >> social acquaintance >> social enemy >> Whatever, I'm just making these up off the top of my head, to put us >> all on the same page as to what these attributes are for. Note that >> <relation> does not bear a subtype= attribute. >> >> So we (the WWP) could, probably, come up with a reasonable set of >> relation names and categories ourselves. But the thought occurs to us >> that there must already be taxonomies of personal relationships out >> there in the world, no? >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft >> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Tei-ontology-sig mailing list >> Tei...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tei-ontology-sig > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Tei-ontology-sig mailing list > Tei...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tei-ontology-sig |
From: Syd B. <Syd_Bauman@Brown.edu> - 2008-02-18 23:26:55
|
Thanks to both Christian-Emil and Richard. These seem like interesting avenues to explore. BUT, without having actually looked at all of these yet, it seems like they are all about familial or genealogical relationships, which are in fact only a small proportion of the relationships we'd like to represent. We also have relationships like * was published by / was publisher of * taught / was student of * worked for / was employer of * went to school together * were friends Do any pre-existing taxonomies talk about these kinds of relationships? Thanks again, guys. |