Honorific

[ncarboni]

The honorific specify a new appellation assigned to a person. It follows the form:

→ P1 → E41[2] 
→ P1 → E41[2] → P2 → E55['Preferred Name']

→ P1 → E41[3
→ P1 → E41[3] → P2 → E55 "honorific"

Should it be also

→ P1 → E41[2] → P106 → E41[3] ?

Alternative can be the creation of an higher appellation which is the composition of two. However, that would not be my preferred solution.

→ P1 → E41 → P106 → E41[1]
→ P1 → E41 → P106 → E41[2]

[illip]

Hi Nicola,

I would be interested to know why you don't like the use of an higher appellation, because CHIN is doing something similar to this proposal.

In fact, I feel like an honorific title could apply whether to a part or a full appellation.

Example

"Sir John Doe" (preferred appellation) was known as "Knight X":

<https://www.rdm.net/person/1234> a crm:E21_Person ;
    crm:P1_is_identified_by <https://www.rdm.net/appellation/1> ;
    crm:P1_is_identified_by <https://www.rdm.net/appellation/2> .

<https://www.rdm.net/appellation/1> a crm:E41_Appellation ;
    crm:P190_has_symbolic_content "Sir John Doe" ;
    crm:P2_has_type <https://www.rdm.net/type/10> ;
    crm:P106_is_composed_of <https://www.rdm.net/appellation/3> ;
    crm:P106_is_composed_of <https://www.rdm.net/appellation/4> ;
    crm:P106_is_composed_of <https://www.rdm.net/appellation/5> .

<https://www.rdm.net/appellation/3> a crm:E41_Appellation ;
    crm:P190_has_symbolic_content "Sir" ;
    crm:P2_has_type <https://www.rdm.net/type/11> .

<https://www.rdm.net/appellation/4> a crm:E41_Appellation ;
    crm:P190_has_symbolic_content "John" ;
    crm:P2_has_type <https://www.rdm.net/type/12> .

<https://www.rdm.net/appellation/5> a crm:E41_Appellation ;
    crm:P190_has_symbolic_content "Doe" ;
    crm:P2_has_type <https://www.rdm.net/type/13> .

<https://www.rdm.net/appellation/2> a crm:E41_Appellation ;
    crm:P190_has_symbolic_content "Knight X" ;
    crm:P2_has_type <https://www.rdm.net/type/11> .

<https://www.rdm.net/type/10> a crm:E55_Type ;
    rdfs:label "Preferred Appellation" .

<https://www.rdm.net/type/11> a crm:E55_Type ;
    rdfs:label "Honorific" .

<https://www.rdm.net/type/12> a crm:E55_Type ;
    rdfs:label "First Name" .

<https://www.rdm.net/type/13> a crm:E55_Type ;
    rdfs:label "Last Name" .

Language

On another topic, the domain of crm:P72_has_language is E33_Linguistic_Object , so I think there should be a double instantiation in your pattern.

Thank you :)

[ncarboni]

Hi Philippe,

Sincerely, I do believe that the honorific is generally not part of the name but an attribute to it. There are cases were this is not true of course, but taking your example I would consider "Sir" just a separate element which is attributed to the person in a specific period of its life. "Doctor" or others would follow the same rule. It is not designated at birth, but given at some point. Unless it is specific for the identity recognition of the person I would have it separated.

Therefore, I would treat the identity criteria differently in respect to at least two cases:

• "Sir John Doe"
• "Lorenzo the Magnificent"

With "Sir John Doe" I would have the "sir" separated as not part of the appellation. As actual honorific. With "Lorenzo the Magnificent" I would have "the Magnificent" as part of the name. In this instance I would treat it more of an appellation itself. Reason is that help identify "Lorenzo" to Lorenzo de Medici, and it is not an addition to its full name which do not have any identification criteria.

I think, however, better rules for diverse cases should be outlined.

Also, the ideal solution that encapsulate this complexity would be to characterise the change (or each name really) with FRBRoo name use activity, but in order to have stable patterns (and for brevity) I sincerely do prefer a solution which include/exclude the honorific from the full name.

Language

On another topic, the domain of crm:P72_has_language is E33_Linguistic_Object , so I think there should be a double instantiation in your pattern.

Oh yep, but I am waiting to see the latest RDF, where there should be a class E41_E33 and then decide if declaring in the pattern as double instantiation or as class E41_E33 :-)

[natuk]

I am considering this as part of another project at the moment and I think I agree with Phillippe. I think arguably "Sir Ian McKellen" helps us identify the actor as opposed to my neighbour in Edinburgh who is also called "Ian McKellen". This is an example from the CRM (but not for appellation). Perhaps it could be an alternative form (P139) with a type "includes honorific" if you want to have a pure record of the name?

By the way, in Linked.Art they are considered as parts of the name.

[ncarboni]

I am considering this as part of another project at the moment and I think I agree with Phillippe. I think arguably "Sir Ian McKellen" helps us identify the actor as opposed to my neighbour in Edinburgh who is also called "Ian McKellen". This is an example from the CRM (but not for appellation). Perhaps it could be an alternative form (P139) with a type "includes honorific" if you want to have a pure record of the name?

This could actually solve the problem if I wanted to retrieve names without honorific (without having to go too much deep in the query). It appears that the consensus is on keeping them as fully part of the name so, in order to keep consistency, we probably should change it accordingly in the reference data model :-) Thank @illip and @natuk for sharing!

I think arguably "Sir Ian McKellen" helps us identify the actor as opposed to my neighbour in Edinburgh who is also called "Ian McKellen".

Bring him to his pub in London. It will be quite hilarious :-D