[tei-council] active/passive again

[Lou Burnard]

On 06/08/12 10:48, Gabriel BODARD wrote:
> Since Council were unconvinced of the value of renaming the
> @active/@passive attributes on <relation> to something more rational
> such as @subject/@object, do you think we could at least express the
> definitions of these attributes in a way that is both grammatically and
> RDF-wise more comprehensible and sensible?

The word "RDF-wise" seems to me neither comprehensible nor sensible. I 
take it you mean "more abstract".


> E.g. changing:
> @active	identifies the ‘active’ participants in a non-mutual
> relationship, or all the participants in a mutual one.
> --->
> @active	identifies the subjects of the relationship statement defined by
> this element[, or all the participants in a mutual one<note
> resp="GB">although I don't think this is true, is it? What is @mutual
> for, then?</note>].

The 3 attributes are intended to indicate two different things
(a) the entities participating in the relationship
(b) whether or not the relationship is directed i.e. whether or not the 
existence of a relation between entities a and b implies an equivalent 
relation between b and a. The relations fatherOf(a,b) or northOf(a,b) 
are directed in this sense, the relations siblingOf(a,b) or 
adjacent(a,b) are not.

If you specify participants only on the @active attribute, then either 
you made a mistake or you meant to imply that @mutual is true. However, 
I agree that the @mutual attribute is redundant, if you assume people 
never make mistakes.

>
> @passive	identifies the ‘passive’ participants in a non-mutual relationship.
> --->
> @passive	identifies the object(s) of the relationship statement made by
> this element.
>
> (I think the existing definitions presuppose that relation points to two
> persons, whereas it is now explicitly defined as appropriate for
> pointing between persons, places, objects and events.)

While I agree that this element was not originally envisaged for 
non-personal relations, I don't see anything particularly 
anthropomorphic in its current definitions. The words "subject" and 
"object" also carry some semantic baggage.

But I certainly agree that the definitions could be improved!