search

cwrc / ontology

CWRC ontology - primary repository
13 stars 7 forks source link

cwrcFamily definition #226

Closed lemaka closed 6 years ago

lemaka commented 6 years ago

use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family

and append?

Within the context of this ontology, cwrc:Family is not so much designed to address questions surrounding ‘blood ties,’ but offers instead a focus on the social (as opposed to biological) aspects of family relations.

SusanBrown commented 6 years ago

I think the issue is more extensive than needing a definition for this one term.

Looking at what we have in the ontology, we don't need to define Family per se so much as to group together the properties such as motherOf, FatherOf etc.

Right now they are subproperties of cwrc:relativeOf, which seems to have been invented when BloodRelativeOf was deprecated, but which has no definition. We would need to figure out how to relate this to family.

I have a feeling that this may need to wait until we can give it more sustained attention. What do you think @alliyya @joelacummings ?

lemaka commented 6 years ago

I have the properties here:

auntOf brotherOf childOf cousinOf daughterOf fatherOf forebearOf grandChildOf grandDaughterOf grandFatherOf grandMotherOf grandParentOf grandSonOf guardianOf husbandOf motherOf nephewOf nieceOf parentOf partnerOf relativeOf sibling sisterOf sonOf stepBrotherOf stepChildOf stepDaughterOf stepFatherOf stepMotherOf stepParentOf stepSisterOf stepSonOf uncleOf wifeOf

Sorry, what exactly do you mean by "group together" @SusanBrown ?

SusanBrown commented 6 years ago

Ah, I guess the inverse properties are there. Scratch that.

I mean that what is needed structurally for the ontology is an explanation of what these relationships are that groups them together. Not a definition of family plain and simple.

SusanBrown commented 6 years ago

I'm also not sure stylistically about using "of" when we use "has" for most other things. And the definitions of the relationships are not definitions.

Do you get what I'm saying about what needs defining? It's not family, but more something like Familial/Family Relationships.

lemaka commented 6 years ago

I think I catch your meaning now. I'll go away and try to craft something that links these terms.

joelacummings commented 6 years ago

For consistency I'd prefer using 'has' for a prefix.

SusanBrown commented 6 years ago

That’s my feeling too.

On Feb 16, 2018, at 8:58 PM, Joel Cummings notifications@github.com wrote:

For consistency I'd prefer using 'has' for a prefix.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/cwrc/ontology/issues/226#issuecomment-366406703, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAhUoN-gRe0w26IMt7CFJmkkDFxc1urdks5tVjJTgaJpZM4SI6z3.

lemaka commented 6 years ago

Agreed.

Also, how's this @SusanBrown ?

Family relationships are social bonds assumed between a group of people affiliated by blood, marriage, or co-residence. For the purposes of this ontology, the focus is on the social aspects of familial relations as opposed to biological ones; for example, motherhood [link to the instance 'Mother'] as a role as opposed to a consanguineal assertion -- although both can be true. Family relationships are subproperties of interpersonal relationships. For more information, see "Family" [link to Dbpedia entry for 'family'?].

Not sure we need the last bit, but thought I'd add for good measure.

SusanBrown commented 6 years ago

Looks great.

lemaka commented 6 years ago

@alliyya could you please add the definition for Family Relationships (see two comments up)?

alliyya commented 6 years ago

@lemaka is this the definition for <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="relativeOf"> or something else?

SusanBrown commented 6 years ago

Now @joelacummings how shall we approach the revision of the terms? I believe it will all work out if we replace "of" with "has" in all of them.

Plus they all need revised definitions--what is there is insufficient, and it will be backwards once we change the predicates. I haven't looked at all the definitions for the terms in wikipedia but they seem adequate. Again they are for the relative not the relationship so we can't just adopt them but would need a definition.

HOWEVER, I still think we are rushing this. I am actually inclined NOT to go ahead even with this definition now @alliyya even though it is fine on its own, because there is work going on with other research groups involving biographical content that we should look at more carefully than we have in this area as well as others. I'm thinking particularly of the bio crm one: https://seco.cs.aalto.fi/projects/biographies/biocrm-2016-08-19.pdf. Also sharing an article about this on Slack.

So in short, I think we should hold back. The terms were bunged into the ontology in the first place without enough research and discussion. I think it might be worth putting in the family relationships definition to flag our general approach, but not trying to really do a full job on the rest of family in haste.

What do people think?

joelacummings commented 6 years ago

I think we do want to standardize these terms with our standard relations names, but I'd also like to relate them to schema.org terms for person -- these definitions are quickly becoming the most prevalent if they are not already. Of note is that they are much more general but that makes the job easier :-) This is related to #175 and I think we should tackle it now and not come back.

Below I have come up with some base relations I think better reflect the way we currently do relations. One thing that I'm unsure of is if we need to be so specific -- will the data give us the precision to use these relations?

Example Mapping

Schema.Org Related Family Elements

Relation to Schema.org relations. Most of the Schema.org relations are are generic in that they are the inverse of themselves. They choose not to use 'has' or 'Of' to get around such issues.

schema:sibling

schema:parent -> schema:children

schema:spouse

schema:relatedTo

SusanBrown commented 6 years ago

I totally agree with the mappings to schema.org.

If we are going to deal with this "once and for all" there remains the question of definitions. The schema.org ones are pretty bald and won't work in many cases because they aren't exactly parallel. I was hoping that the bio ontologies that I pointed to might have helpful definitions and equivalents. The bio-crm one in particular might be useful but I can't easily find the ontology itself to look into definitions.

I'd like someone to take this on and do some followup. Perhaps @joelacummings since you're running with this?

joelacummings commented 6 years ago

Done and added!