SNAP WG on person-like and group-like entities

[Greta Hawes]

Dear all,

This is to report back on the SNAP WG on entities that came out of LP6.  The group comprised Gabby Boddard, Ulrike Peter, Hugh Cayless, Karsten Tolle, and myself. 

Our task was to revisit the current LAWD ontology of person-types, as recommended by SNAP, i.e.:

A type drawn from this list:[1]

• lawd:Person

• lawd:Deity

• lawd:Group

• lawd:MythologicalCreature

Or, if you cannot distinguish between the above categories, use the catch-all:

• lawd:Agent

In broad terms, our solution was to have a single high-level type "Agent" and then below this a set of allowable traits. The list of these should be as short as possible, while full enough to allow compatibility between projects. For the moment, our potential list includes: group, individual, person (i.e. human-like), animal, deity, historical, mythical/fictional. There would be no constraints on which traits might be combined in a single entity, to allow for flexibility of use.

We invite feedback on this solution, and especially on the usefulness and completeness of the traits listed.

With kind regards,

Greta.   

[Roueche, Charlotte]

I think it may be necessary to establish very clear guidance on the difference between MythologicalCreatures and Deities. For example Herakles or Achilles are sometimes offered cult: what are they? I also have angels: Gabriel is definitely not a deity. I have used a group category, divine and sacred; this includes Christian saints.

 

C

 

From: <ancient...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Greta Hawes <greta...@gmail.com>
Reply to: "ancient...@googlegroups.com" <ancient...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Monday, 19 July 2021 at 00:38
To: "ancient...@googlegroups.com" <ancient...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [ancient-people] SNAP WG on person-like and group-like entities

 

You don't often get email from greta...@gmail.com. Learn why this is important

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ancient-people/CAENDuQV8tEN6mikdN6oWDy5zR%3DyO%3D_Vat0v0j4bBYBPbF4GqHg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Achille Felicetti]

There is also the peculiar case of the "divinization" of the Roman emperors in paganism, who were offered a particular form of worship similar to that reserved for the other divinities of the Roman pantheon.

In this case, the same character falls into two different categories (e.g. Person, Deity) but in two different moments in time ...

Ciao,

A.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ancient-people/7098EABE-0BC6-433B-9863-3F8FD602196B%40kcl.ac.uk.

[Greta Hawes]

Thanks, Charlotte and Achille, for these observations.  Making sure that we can accommodate many different kinds of content without proliferating too much is very much the challenge!

The cases that you brought up are the kinds that pushed us to rethink the category, and to suggest as a solution a single high-level category ('agent') with a set of specified lower level traits, of which any number and combination could be used for a single entity.  So, Heracles could have the traits 'individual', 'deity', 'person', 'mythological'; the Vestal Virgins could have 'group', 'person', 'historical'.

Could you see some form of this system working with your data?  The final list of traits will of course require further input and revision.  

Kind regards,

Greta. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ancient-people/CAHBPj2dyChc_qgUwudb3CvT8KqF0Wrxzj3G3U-UxJe2aB2cT0Q%40mail.gmail.com.