relation related questions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

relation related questions

Torsten Schassan-2
Dear colleagues,

in the Handschriftenportal we want to store entity-related information in TEI (snippets) and we want to model the relations between them with <relation>.

Concerning this I've got two questions:

1. Is there a preferred ontology used to name the relations? schema.org? CIDOC-CRM? Or do most of you use his/hers own?

2. We would like to be able to point to the ontology being used and thus free ourselves from the necessity to maintain a hard-coded value list in the ODD but allow for a "machine-controlled" (=controllable) vocabulary. This couldn't be achieved by using @type and @name as both of them have the datatype teidate.enumerated. What would you suggest? The usage of @ref wouldn't be interpreted as "type of relation", would it? Something like @scheme, as defined for <catRef>, or even better like in <classCode> and being required, would be helpful though.

Any ideas?

Best,
Torsten

-- 
Torsten Schassan - Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen / Digitale Editionen
Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel.: +49 5331 808-130 Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank: http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relation related questions

Martin de la Iglesia-3
Dear Torsten,

1. CIDOC-CRM might be the most useful, but depending on the kind of entities and relations, you might want to mix and match several different ontologies.

2. URIs in @ref are indeed used to describe the kind of relation: see the 4th example at https://tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-relation.html.


Martin


— 
Martin de la Iglesia
Kommentierte digitale Edition der Reise- und Sammlungsbeschreibungen Philipp Hainhofers (1578-1647)
Herzog August Bibliothek, Lessingplatz 1, 38304 Wolfenbüttel     Tel. +49 5331 808-125



Von: Torsten Schaßan <[hidden email]>
An: <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: 17.09.2020 16:50
Betreff: relation related questions

Dear colleagues,

in the Handschriftenportal we want to store entity-related information in TEI (snippets) and we want to model the relations between them with <relation>.

Concerning this I've got two questions:

1. Is there a preferred ontology used to name the relations? schema.org? CIDOC-CRM? Or do most of you use his/hers own?

2. We would like to be able to point to the ontology being used and thus free ourselves from the necessity to maintain a hard-coded value list in the ODD but allow for a "machine-controlled" (=controllable) vocabulary. This couldn't be achieved by using @type and @name as both of them have the datatype teidate.enumerated. What would you suggest? The usage of @ref wouldn't be interpreted as "type of relation", would it? Something like @scheme, as defined for <catRef>, or even better like in <classCode> and being required, would be helpful though.

Any ideas?

Best,
Torsten

-- 
Torsten Schassan - Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen / Digitale Editionen
Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel.: +49 5331 808-130 Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank: http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: relation related questions

ANTONIO ROJAS CASTRO
Hi all,

Interesting questions, Torsten. 

If your entities are bibliographic or related, I think BIBFRAME (https://www.loc.gov/bibframe/) terms and relationships can be enough some times. FRBR adds more complexity and it is a bit old. In any case, both bibliographic models are supposed to be interoperable with CIDOC CRM.

Best,

El lun., 21 sept. 2020 a las 9:25, Martin de la Iglesia (<[hidden email]>) escribió:
Dear Torsten,

1. CIDOC-CRM might be the most useful, but depending on the kind of entities and relations, you might want to mix and match several different ontologies.

2. URIs in @ref are indeed used to describe the kind of relation: see the 4th example at https://tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-relation.html.


Martin


— 
Martin de la Iglesia
Kommentierte digitale Edition der Reise- und Sammlungsbeschreibungen Philipp Hainhofers (1578-1647)
Herzog August Bibliothek, Lessingplatz 1, 38304 Wolfenbüttel     Tel. +49 5331 808-125



Von: Torsten Schaßan <[hidden email]>
An: <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: 17.09.2020 16:50
Betreff: relation related questions

Dear colleagues,

in the Handschriftenportal we want to store entity-related information in TEI (snippets) and we want to model the relations between them with <relation>.

Concerning this I've got two questions:

1. Is there a preferred ontology used to name the relations? schema.org? CIDOC-CRM? Or do most of you use his/hers own?

2. We would like to be able to point to the ontology being used and thus free ourselves from the necessity to maintain a hard-coded value list in the ODD but allow for a "machine-controlled" (=controllable) vocabulary. This couldn't be achieved by using @type and @name as both of them have the datatype teidate.enumerated. What would you suggest? The usage of @ref wouldn't be interpreted as "type of relation", would it? Something like @scheme, as defined for <catRef>, or even better like in <classCode> and being required, would be helpful though.

Any ideas?

Best,
Torsten

-- 
Torsten Schassan - Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen / Digitale Editionen
Herzog August Bibliothek, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel, Tel.: +49 5331 808-130 Fax -165
Handschriftendatenbank: http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss


--
Dr. Antonio Rojas Castro
Post-doctoral Researcher, BBAW
Editor, The Programming Historian en español