Issue 199: "by parent" property

Starting Date: 
2011-10-27
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Done
Closing Date: 
2015-02-12
Background: 

Posted by Christian Emil on 27/10/2011

Dear all
In connection wiith that the parents problem poped up again.

The WISSKI (wisski.eu) group encountered the following problem with a large German authority file Personennamendatei", see the information from Georg Hohmann at the end. The problem is: The Personennamendatei does not necessarily give information of the gender of parent, just station that x is parent of y. (I assume that this due to the fact that the gender can in most(?) cases be deducted form the name). In CRM one can reject this as bad practice. However, this attitude may be considered slightly arrogant at least by some.

In CRM parenthood is modeled very biologically: P96 by mother & P97 from father. In the scope notes of both the biological aspect is stressed. (I personally have the opinion that the word biological should be deleted form the scope note of P97 from father, since this is to put a Somewhat Victorian view on the matter).

IN CRM it is said that all kind of family relations should be modeled by the use of E74 Group. For example a married couple is modeled as a E74 Group. The membership relation is typed: "The married couple Queen Elisabeth and Prince Phillip (E74) has current or former member Prince Phillip (E21) with P107.1 kind of member husband (E55 Type)".

The group model (E74 Group, P107 has current or former member, P107.1 kind of member, is completely general and very powerful and can be used to model ALL relationships between actor. The only limitation is in fact that the specific formation event for a group is a (E66 Formation) is a subclass of E7 Activity and requires an agents, someone performing the formation.

With the above tool box:
1) we can model parenthood (father mother child) by the use of P96 by mother & P97 from father only when the gender of the parent is known.

2) If the gender of the parent is not known we have to introduce a group say of E55 type 'parenthood' to link the child to the parent. The child will be connected via P107 has current or former member, P107.1 kind of member (child) and the parent P107 has current or former member, P107.1 kind of member (parent).

In my opinion this is not according to the idea of CRM as a model for data integration based on refinement. That is, less information map to a superclass / superproperty, more information map to a subclass /suproperty.

The issues are:
Add a property "by parent" from E21 Person to E67 Birth. This property is a superproperty of both P96 by mother & P97 from father but not a subproperty of anything.

Remove the word biological from the scope notes of P97 from father.

Current Proposal: 

The SIG discussed this issue along with the discussion about membership relationship of FRAD and concluded that a model of parent-child in a legal sense may be useful.

It appears that there is a notion of events justifying parenthood relationships in a biological or legal sense. There is a notion of legal parenthood being equal to or equivalent to biological parenthood. The fact that the legal system may not acknowledge biological parenthood is not a contradiction to a more general concept comprising both biological and legal sense. In particular, such a notion should imply as default children being heirs, if the society supports such concept.

Current proposal is to add a relationship by parent(is parent of).

Christian Emil Ore will elaborate the scope note for this link.

---------------------------------------------------------------
P152 has parent (is parent of)

Domain: E21 Person 
Range: E21 Person 
Subproperty of: 
Quantification: (2,n:0:n) 
Scope note: It appears that there is a notion of events justifying parenthood relationships in a biological or legal sense. There is a notion of legal parenthood being equal to or equivalent to biological parenthood. The fact that the legal system may not acknowledge biological parenthood is not a contradiction to a more general concept comprising both biological and legal sense. In particular, such a notion should imply as default children being heirs, if the society supports such concept.

The superproperty of this property should paths like "was born - gave birth, was born, by father.." and it is in abeyance until the next meeting.

Heraklion Crete 3/5/2012


The SIG decided that the scope note needs revision
Amersfoort 20/11/2012


In 28th CRM-SIG Stockholm 7/6/2013 decided to merge the issue 224 with the issue 199. 

The issue 224 was: 

Posted by wolfgang schmidle 11/2/2013 
Dear all, 

I am struggling to understand P152 "has parent", especially the description "Superproperty of paths for was born gave birth, was born, by father", which seems to be a tidied-up version of the outcome of issue 199. 

1. First subproperty, then fully developed path: Does the description mean that P152 has a hypothetical subproperty "PX has biological parent", which in turn is a shortcut for "P21 Person (Child) P98i was born E67 Birth P96 by mother E21 Person (Biological Mother)" and "P21 (Child) P98i was born E67 Birth P97 from father E21 (Biological Father)"? 

2. First fully developed path, then sub-path: Is P152 a shortcut for a hypothetical fully developed path "E21 (Child) P98i was born E67 Birth PY by parent E21 (Parent)" with the property "PY by parent" proposed in issue 199 (but apparently rejected in this form), and then PY is a superproperty of P96 and P97, or the whole path is a superpath of P98i E67 P96/P97? 

If the former, will there also be fully developed paths for "E21 PZ has legal parent E21", which would replace "E39 Actor (child) P143i was joined by E85 Joining P144 joined with E74 Group (family)" for e.g. adoptions? If the latter, why is E67 Birth involved in legal parenthood? And what about social parents? 

Would it be easier not to claim any formal relationship between P152 and P96/P97 for the time being?


The CRM-SIG decided to postpone this issue in order to look for evidence about the specific social meaning in the documentation in archival practice 
28th CRM-SIG meeting, June 2013, Stockholm 
===========================================================
We should find examples and rewrite the scope note (CEO) 
29th CRM-SIG meeting, Heraklion, October 2013 
===========================================================
CEO will elaborate it 
30th CRM-SIG meeting Hague, April 2014

In 31st joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG, ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 24th FRBR - CIDOC CRM, resolving the ISSUE 199, the scope note of  P152 has been updated. Christian Emil, Eyvind, Steve Stead will map ULAN  association roles and present to next crm-sig.

Heraklion Crete, 29/9/2014

Posted by Christian Emil on 1/10/2015

P152 has parent (is parent of)

Domain:                               E21 Person

Range:                  E21 Person

Subproperty of:  

Quantification:    (2,n:0:n) also wrong?, no

The activities (E87) by the Benaki Museum curated the acquisition of dolls and games of urban and folk manufacture dating from the 17th to the 20th century, from England, France and Germany

 

 

Gaius Octavius (E29) has parent Julius Caesar (E29)

 

Steve Jobs (E29) has parent Joanne Simpson (biological mother)(E29)

Steve Jobs (E29) has parent Clara Jobs (adoption mother) (E29)​

 

 

Posted by Christian-Emil on 7/2/2015

There is a elaborated  person role system in ULAN comprising  than  1200  roles. I have had a closer look and these are simply E55 Types linked directly to the "person", e.g. animal (a horse) and 'antipope' etc. and has nothing to do with family relations or relations between persons.

There is a family relation system in ULAN. I checked a Norwegian family of painters autors etc  Krohg:
Christian Krohg (http://www.edd.uio.no/perl/kub/mediefil_kub.cgi?id=22827494)  and

Oda Krohg (https://media.snl.no/system/images/16107/standard_NMK-B_NG.M.04318201307...) were married.

They had a son Per (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_Krohg#mediaviewer/File:UN_security_coun...) together.

From the ULAN records on can observe (besides noting that  ULAN is male focused, Oda is listed with no child and Per has no mother), the relations are not gender specific: 'child of', 'spouse'. The excuse is that the gender of a person is specified.

The excerpt from ULAN below shows the listed relations between the three Krohgs (there is also more artists in the family not listed) and some students and teachers. The ULAN parent/child relation corresponds to the P152 has parent/is parent of. An example for the scop enote can be

Per Krohg (E21).  P152 has parent (is parent of): Christian Krohg (E21)

With ULAN idenfiers it could be

Per Krohg  [ULAN: 500069715 ](E21) .  P152 has parent (is parent of): Christian Krohg [ULAN: [500011632]]  (E21)

********************************
ULAN excerpts

Christian Krohg
Related People or Corporate Bodies:
parent of ....  Krohg, Per 
................  (Norwegian painter, costume designer, and scenographer, 1889-1965) [500009787]
spouse of ....  Krohg, Oda 
................  (Norwegian painter, 1860-1935) [500069715]
student of ....  Gude, Hans Fredrik 
..................  (Norwegian painter, 1825-1903) [500004718]
student of ....  Gussow, Karl 
..................  (German painter, 1843-1907) [500031129]
student of ....  Middelthun, Julius Olavus  1870-1871
..................  (Norwegian sculptor, 1820-1886) [500122010]
teacher of ....  Eiebakke, August  1886-1887
..................  (Norwegian painter, 1867-1938) [500093351]

Oda Krohg
Related People or Corporate Bodies:
spouse of ....  Krohg, Christian 
................  (Norwegian painter, draftsman, and author, 1852-1925) [500011632]

Per Krohg
Related People or Corporate Bodies:
child of ....  Krohg, Christian 
..............  (Norwegian painter, draftsman, and author, 1852-1925) [500011632]
teacher of ....  Storstein, Aage 
..................  (Norwegian painter, 1900-1983) [500091511]

 

 

Outcome: 

In the 32nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 25th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig accpeted the quantification and the examples.

The issue is closed.

Oxford, February 2015