Family and Friends terms and Intimate Relationships and definitions

[lemaka]

Draft:

• [x] Orlando Sub-Element
• [x] Class
• [x] Predicate
• [ ] Inverse Predicate
• [x] Attributes
• [x] Attribute Values
• [x] Instances
• [ ] Label
• [ ] Ontology relationships
• [x] Definitions from Orlando
• [x] Definition for Ontology -- @SusanBrown ready for review
• [ ] French Label
• [ ] French Translation
• [ ] Triples in data file
• [ ] Extraction Location
• [ ] Xpath indication

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L9V__vfiZ2hEZOsbVkMZ7-JlsToHHOuOKzbPIi-HTPs/edit?usp=sharing

[lemaka]

definitions and terms for

• [ ] hasEroticRelationship
• [ ] hasNonEroticRelationship
• [ ] hasPossiblyEroticRelationship

ready for review @SusanBrown (row 47 -49)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1L9V__vfiZ2hEZOsbVkMZ7-JlsToHHOuOKzbPIi-HTPs/edit#gid=1512757216

[lemaka]

mull over following predicates:

hasChildren hasChildlessness???

(cc'ing you @SusanBrown)

I think these are very good @lemaka. I've tweaked slightly. Before we add them, though, I think they should go in the spreadsheet so we can review what we have in mind for extraction--for instance when would hasChildren be assigned a zero value? Can you please transfer them and have a stab at that based on our conversation?

how about (as per car ride back from Stratford):

• [ ] hasChildren Describes the number of children a person reportedly had. Children here need not necessarily be biologically related to the subject: they may be adopted or otherwise considered kin. Values range from zero upwards. Because families and reproduction are complex matters, and situations can change over time, this property can co-exist with @@#hasNoChildren@@ and @@#hasChildLoss@@.

• [ ] hasNoChildren Describes a person as not having children, whether biologically related, adopted, or otherwise taken in as kin. Because families and reproduction are complex matters, and situations can change over time, this property can co-exist with @@#hasChildren@@ and @@#hasChildLoss@@.

• [ ] hasChildLoss Describes a person's loss of a child, whether biologically related, adopted, or otherwise considered kin. Because families and reproduction are complex matters, and situations can change over time, this property can co-exist with @@#hasChildren@@ and @@#hasNoChildren@@.

[lemaka]

ready for review @SusanBrown SIB: Great in general but please guard against using the language of attributes and elements. Revised accordingly. Also, we don't want to cross reference a term to itself, so I removed those references. Also please bear in mind that definitions should not apply to women alone unless we want to restrict them as such. Where checked they are good to go, @GurjapSingh @alliyya

What still needs discussion here: the relationship between the different attributes, unless we want to create multiple relationships, i.e. both hasIntimateRelationship and hasErotic Relationship]

• [x] hasFriend or Associate

Indications familiarity with the object ranging from friendship to enmities and associations. The coupling of friend with associate in a single predicate covers a broad spectrum of social relations, ranging from, for example, a writer having coffee with Samuel Johnson on one notable day, without needing a historical record of whether they were necessarily friends, through to substantial friendships. See also @@#hasEroticRelationship@@, @@#hasIntimateRelationship@@, @@#hasPossiblyEroticRelationship@@. <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#interpersonalRelationship"/>

• [ ] hasIntimateRelationship Indicates a relationship that involves any type of intimacy ranging from emotional through psychological or material to sexual. Counters the traditional assumption that the only intimate relations happen within the context of marriage or heterosexual relations between sexual partners. For instance, it includes lifelong female friendships, defining psychological connections, or erotically-charged same sex or opposite sex relationships. It may apply to both brief sexual affairs and lifelong non-sexual relationships, although where the erotic element is known for distinguishing between the two

[SB: broke off editing here due to the realization that we need to sort out the intersection of the tag and attribute values]

). This element also seeks to redress the historical and ideological silence placed upon women's same-sex relationships; it recognizes that biographical information concerning these relationships often is impossible to uncover; therefore this element allows us to recognize these relations as significant while not assuming, in the absence of biographical proof, that they were sexual. See @@#hasFriendOrAssociate@@, @@#hasEroticRelationship@@, @@#hasPossiblyEroticRelationship@@. `

• [ ] hasEroticRelationship

Describes intimate relationships that are erotic and/or explicitly sexual. Erotic in this context sometimes suggests that sexuality was an issue in the relationship, whether or not it was acted upon. In not wishing to assume that heterosexual relations between sexual partners are the only standard for intimate relationships, we include both erotic and non-erotic relations as central to a subject’s life and use @@#hasEroticIRelationship@@ to distinguish between the two. See @@#hasFriendOrAssociate@@, @@#hasEroticRelationshp@@, @@#hasIntimateRelationship@@, @@#hasPossiblyEroticRelationshp@@. <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#interpersonalRelationship"/>

—> add that we are more interested in affect than physical acts?

• [ ] hasNonEroticRelationship

Describes an intimate relationship with the subject that is neither erotic nor sexual in nature. See @@#hasFriendOrAssociate@@, @@#hasEroticRelationshp@@, @@#hasIntimateRelationship@@, @@#hasPossiblyEroticRelationshp@@. <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#interpersonalRelationship"/>

• [ ] hasPossiblyEroticRelationship

Describes an intimate relationship that may or may not be erotic in nature. This predicate also seeks to redress the historical and ideological silence placed upon same sex relationships; it recognizes that biographical information concerning these relationships often is impossible to uncover. @@#hasPossiblyEroticRelationship@@ registers the possibility of a sexual relationship, when, in the absence of biographical proof, it is impossible to claim such as fact. See @@#hasFriendOrAssociate@@, @@#hasEroticRelationship@@, @@#hasIntimateRelationship@@. <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#interpersonalRelationship"/>

[SusanBrown]

@lemaka Just summarizing where I think we are here:

This confirms my sense that we would work more effectively in the spreadsheet on these definitions than in github. I've checked the definitions that are good to go, so those could be noted by colour as reviewed by me but I think we should move both approved and in progress definitions back into the spreadsheet. For once thing, it also means we can note subproperties, etc. Can you please do that?

There are at least a couple of terms in the ontology that are not defined yet: interpersonalRelation and hasRelative: pls add to spreadsheet

dbpedia references and links need to be added to the family member definitions. It might work to add them to the code when copying the definitions over to the spreadsheet but I think the spreadsheet should be in sync with the definitions.

[alliyya]

@lemaka I would like to hold off on putting these terms in the ontology, since only one of the terms is done and makes references to the other terms that are not created. (Would be awkward to make reference to non-existent terms.

Will hold off till this set of definitions is fully fleshed out.

[lemaka]

@alliyya roger that

@SusanBrown the spreadsheet, github, and the ontology are now reconciled (added new column for link to corresponding DBpedia url); will also take a crack at extraction instructions for hasChildren, hasNoChild, hasChildLoss

[lemaka]

gentle ping: @SusanBrown Extraction Locations (Column S) ready for review by yourself and then @joelacummings in Biography Spreadsheet (linked at the top) under "Family" tab

[alliyya]

Terms are ready to be added pending decision on naming of predicates with "with" suffix

[lemaka]

Decision: use hasIntimateRelationshipWith

[alliyya]

resolved in 155664a3f4884dddd33277ac1f4473e19389c726