search

buda-base / owl-schema

BDRC Ontology Schema
11 stars 2 forks source link

record founder of a monastery #39

Open eroux opened 7 years ago

eroux commented 7 years ago

TL;DR:

maybe we could have a :placeEventWho property to record who is the responsible for a particular event. It would be mostly useful for the foundation of the monastery, for which we sometimes have this information.

Whole thing:

Looking at the Kagyu places out of curiosity, the first example I found is G1KR1660 which has a very long note indicating some interesting data, sadly in Tibetan only. It indicates that it was founded by འཇའ་ལུས་རྡོ་རྗེ shortly after 1900. This person has no record in the data, but there are many cases where it's would be easy to record it, for example G4783 was founded by P39. Interestingly, there is a link between P39 and G4783 in the info of P39:

<p:event circa="11uu" type="foundsMonastery">
    <p:place pid="G4783">zhong zhong </p:place>
</p:event>

So this is a more convoluted case of symetric data... Basically here a personEvent and a placeEvent carry the exact same meaning, but one has less information than the other (the placeEvent doesn't record the person while the personEvent records the place). Maybe that could be modelled in a more uniform way?

eroux commented 7 years ago

Following https://github.com/BuddhistDigitalResourceCenter/owl-schema/issues/40 I think the problem is a bit larger here: even if we add :placeEventWho, we would have different notes and possibly different incoherent information... maybe I can make a pass in xmltold to detect incoherences and report them? I'm not sure what to do...

eroux commented 7 years ago

(BTW, in the previous examples, data contradict, we have in P39:

<p:event circa="11uu" type="foundsMonastery">
    <p:place pid="G4783">zhong zhong </p:place>
</p:event>

and in G4783:

<g:event circa="1021" type="placeEventTypes:founded">
    <g:affiliation rid="lineage:ShangpaKagyu" type="placeEventAffiliationTypes:lineage">shangs pa bka' brgyud</g:affiliation>
</g:event>

, the date contradict (11uu vs 1021)... I think it's typically the kind of annoyance that would be avoided if we have only one way to model something...

eroux commented 7 years ago

Another interesting though: even if we were to split the monastery foundation event between a person event and a monastery event, it would still be relevant to add the tradition affiliation, as people in one tradition don't always found monasteries of their tradition, on example would be the Shechen monastery G20, founded by a Gelukpa as a Nyingma monastery, not a Gelugpa one

xristy commented 5 years ago

I'm reopening this until we have a solid solution to the :Event modeling