Announcement of the Ontology Comparison Sprint on March 26

[Jun Ogawa]

Dear all,

On Wednesday March 26, at 14:00 GMT, we will be holding an Ontology Comparison Sprint, which will involve two activities (possibly performed in breakout groups):

1. Comparing the fields/properties and structure of the specific ontologies for historical prosopography or person-data listed at <https://github.com/DigiClass/LOD-People/wiki/Linked-Prosopographical-Standards>

2. Extracting a list of key fields/properties used for identification, disambiguation or search of person records in some of the prosopographical databases and other datasets listed at <https://github.com/DigiClass/LOD-People/wiki/List-Linked-Person-Data> and in the longer spreadsheet at <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qvl_VZuHYPyKcivuDRBpL-Tk9qT8XhcWFqXpMjAWiFA>

It would be useful to discuss *before* the meeting (i.e. here by email) how we want to go about organising this data, so that we spend as much time as possible in the meeting working on the comparison of data models.

all the best,

Jun

[Gabriel Bodard]

Thanks for setting this up, Jun.

The LOD People Ontology Comparison Sprint will be held at <https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86811273230?pwd=xiv00l8iWGA3R9ygeZPB1Y2AjCIHye.1> this Wednesday, at 14:00 GMT (double check timezones, especially if you're already on Summer time!).

As Jun says, I think it would be best to have an idea how we're going to proceed before we start, so as not to lose half of the meeting trying to figure this out. As a starting poing, I suggest:

1. We break up into small groups/pairs and analyse one ontology or one or more digital prosopography project at a time.
2. We come up with a very simple spreadsheet in which to capture:
1. ontologies/vocabs used
2. the primary properties/data fields in each dataset—i.e. those used in search, those that are not optional, those designed for interoperability/exchange
3. We resist the temptation to expand the spreadsheet to dozens of columns (as we have done before!); the value is in overview and comparison, not comprehensiveness

I can come up with a first draft of this sheet, if that would be useful to show what we mean. Is there anything else that you all think it would be useful to capture at this first step?

All best,

Gabby

-- 

Dr Gabriel BODARD (he/him)
Reader in Digital Classics

Director of Studies (research): Digital Humanities Research Hub

Director of Studies (research): Institute of Classical Studies

Mailing address:

  Institute of Classical Studies

  University of London

  Senate House

  Malet Street

  London WC1E 7HU

 
Due to new IT security rules, I am currently not able to read or reply to email outside of office hours, or while travelling or working from home. This may result in slower replies than usual.

---

From: ancient...@googlegroups.com <ancient...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Jun Ogawa <htjk65...@gmail.com>
Sent: 18 March 2025 08:10
To: Ancient People <ancient...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [ancient-people] Announcement of the Ontology Comparison Sprint on March 26

 

--
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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ancient-people/804e12e3-8fa6-4e98-9cac-fcad1a0afa79n%40googlegroups.com.

[A I]

Dear Jun, dear Gabby, 

thank you for this useful initiative. I will try to join. 

What interests me when ontologies are compared to one another is how the classes are defined. Because it is often the case that different ontologies use the same terms such as "person", "attestation", "name", etc., but these terms are defined differently in different ontologies, and often just implicitly. Thus along with data fields I find it also useful to share definitions of the key ontological classes that underlie these ontologies, in order to survey the differences and get an idea of whether there is a room for definitions that could be serve as the basis for interoperability. So maybe we can contribute to a questionnaire that can be established in order to highlight the differences and similarities between the underlying definitions as the first step. 

All the best 

Alexander

Priv.-Doz. Alexander Ilin-Tomich

Research Associate

Department of Ancient Studies, Egyptology

FB 07 Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz
Persons and Names of the Middle Kingdom and early New Kingdom

https://pnm.uni-mainz.de/info

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ancient-people/LO0P123MB41400ABAD223FFCEA9B0053EC1A42%40LO0P123MB4140.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Jun Ogawa]

Dear all, 

Thank you for proposing your ideas about our first step to take.

As the details may be slightly different, the common idea is that we should prepare a spreadsheet to co-edit, with minimum columns. 

I've set up a document (thanks for offering, Gabby) with 3 columns representing, 1. basic concept or feature of each ontology, 2. ontologies / vocabs user, 3. primary properties and dataset fields.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EvhW3aOtTgWTktHc0XBbQ47lLHHJSWkOK03zL7O22rY/edit?usp=sharing

I put SNAP at the top of the lists and would like to ask Gabby, if possible, to fill it up as an example. 

Of course, please feel free to edit the doc before the meeting starting at 14:00 GMT today.

See you soon!

Best,

Jun

2025年3月25日(火) 0:21 A I <ilint...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ancient-people/CAFvgRXe-yYw1sJ%2B-a1uTeDRbze6eKf4CUs1%2BTVPuMRE5G%2B%2BHJA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gabriel Bodard]

Thanks, Jun. I was going to suggest a slightly different format for the spreadsheet, which I have put in sheet two of your spreadsheet (just for discussion). There I have listed the most common fields, with dropdown values such as "string", "URI", "vocabulary", "numerical" etc. and a column for "others". This both helps to visually align datasets and a _virtual ontology_ , and gives us a sense of datatypes. Leave a cell blank if the project/dataset in question doesn't include this in core fields.

We might add either a note or an extra cell with a brief definition of these headings, as Alexander suggests. (The main ambiguity is probably the distinction between "citation" and "attestation".)

I'll add more notes, and then we can discuss (hopefully very) briefly at 14 GMT.

Cheers!

Gabby

-- 

Dr Gabriel BODARD (he/him)
Reader in Digital Classics

Director of Studies (research): Digital Humanities Research Hub

Director of Studies (research): Institute of Classical Studies

Mailing address:

  Institute of Classical Studies

  University of London

  Senate House

  Malet Street

  London WC1E 7HU

 
Due to new IT security rules, I am currently not able to read or reply to email outside of office hours, or while travelling or working from home. This may result in slower replies than usual.

---

From: ancient...@googlegroups.com <ancient...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Jun Ogawa <htjk65...@gmail.com>

Sent: 26 March 2025 06:56
To: ancient...@googlegroups.com <ancient...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ancient-people] Announcement of the Ontology Comparison Sprint on March 26

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ancient-people/CAJH5Yf4anPWnUoERFqNQdTusGZ410pnNm3rWQwMBDangwPud5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jun Ogawa]

Thanks Gabby. 

I was misunderstanding a bit of your suggestion and the new version is much better in its specificity.

Best,

Jun

2025年3月26日(水) 21:23 'Gabriel Bodard' via Ancient People <ancient...@googlegroups.com>:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ancient-people/LO0P123MB41408F8CAF218C479B344469C1A62%40LO0P123MB4140.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Gabriel Bodard]

Dear all,

In the Person database survey sprint last week, a small group of us started a checklist of the most common fields across some of the databases compiled in previous Activity sprints (and at LP9 and LP10). This survey is in the spreadsheet at <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EvhW3aOtTgWTktHc0XBbQ47lLHHJSWkOK03zL7O22rY/>.

In the spirit of asynchronous sprints in this group, please feel free to populate one or more further rows in that spreadsheet if you would like to contribute as and when you have time. (See sheet 2 for some documentation, definitions, and other help.) The main things to note are:

1. Please ignore the top ten rows of the sheet. We will discuss specific ontologies later, after surveying the data "in the wild" first.
2. We have a limited number of columns, which represent the most common fields we have found so far in things like the search interface or "simple view" of persons in each database (which we use as a proxy for "most important" and/or "most likely to be interoperable" headings). Any important fields not covered by these headings, please list in the final column "Others". If we spot terms that appear many times in this column, we may add new headings for them.
3. we're currently using a controlled vocabulary of datatypes under each heading; try to make them fit as  best you can. You may select more than one type, if e.g. names may be either strings or URIs. If a value really needs to be added to this list, make sure you add it across the whole range, not just in the single cell you are editing.

Any other questions or suggestions, please go ahead and ask on this list!

(Sneak preview: our next activity meeting, on April 29, will be a presentation and discussion with Charlotte Tupman on the Connecting Late Antiquities project and prosopography. The next real-time work spring will be on May 14, when we will focus on tracking down and archiving small samples of person-data from some of the open access/open licensed projects we come across. Another partner presentation will be planned for a date in June, to be decided.)