SNAP:DRGN Cookbook version 1.0

[Gabriel Bodard]

Many of you have probably already seen the SNAP:DRGN Cookbook in draft
form, which has been circulating as a GoogleDoc for a few months now.
We're delighted finally to announce the release of the first stable
Cookbook 1.0, which can be downloaded as PDF from
<http://snapdrgn.net/cookbook> (or browsed in a less-pretty GoogleDoc
that is guaranteed not to change).

The Cookbook outlines the five scenarios that SNAP:DRGN is hoping will
bring online prosopographical datasets together, and offers concrete
recommendations for the first three (getting online; providing RDF to
SNAP; co-referencing two person records).

In the meantime, we're starting to work on new functionality for
Cookbook 1.1, such as the addition of a mechanism for recording
uncertainty, an "associated role" proprty, general comments, and a
description of contributing projects. Corrections, revisions, and
improvements to prose will also be folder into the next release.

All comments, criticisms and suggestions EXTREMELY welcome!

Thank you.

Gabby
and the SNAP:DRGN team

--
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher in Digital Epigraphy

Digital Humanities
King's College London
Boris Karloff Building
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Email: gabriel...@kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/

[Vladimir Alexiev]

What's the view on reusing CRM? It includes roles, groups, attributions, notes; and in the BM ontology we extended a bit with uncertainty etc

[Sebastian Rahtz]

This is an interesting question. We have discussed it within SNAP project several times, and there are several (related) answers:

  a) SNAP remains experimental and proof of concept, so we want an environment to play freely. We didn't want to commit at this stage to the mapping to CRM

  b) within the environment of the ancient world, the LAWD ontology and community have some traction which we want to build on. so using concepts from there was important

  c) It will probably be straightforward, when the SNAP concepts are solid, to map them cleanly to CRM (possibly with extensions if needed). So it would be possible to infer a CRM view of the SNAP datasets, and expose that alongside the LAWD-like one.

Does that make sense?

On 18 September 2014 18:47, Vladimir Alexiev <vlad...@sirma.bg> wrote:

What's the view on reusing CRM? It includes roles, groups, attributions, notes; and in the BM ontology we extended a bit with uncertainty etc

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ancient People" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ancient-peopl...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ancient...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ancient-people.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ancient-people/ef09ce3b-4834-4239-96fe-cbd18ca9a9ff%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Sebastian Rahtz      

Director (Research) of Academic IT

University of Oxford IT Services

13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

Não sou nada.

Nunca serei nada.

Não posso querer ser nada.

À parte isso, tenho em mim todos os sonhos do mundo.