User talk:Sophie de Leeuw

From FactGrid
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Spreadsheet

First task: Gender. I sorted the table by name, so that you have less of a problem to decide which gender these people are - columns I is for gender, f and m. Best --Olaf Simons (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2021 (CEST)


I have just entered the genders. I have also made a list of first names of which I do not know the gender for sure:

  • Brunelle (Joineau); female
  • Bulfinch (Lamb); male
  • Filmore (Southouse); male
  • Handrin (Barre); male
  • J.-J. (Doladille); male (Jean-Jacques Doladille)
  • Joan; female
  • Josiah (Bundy); male
  • Josué (Prade); male
  • M. (Kemp); female
  • M. (De Beaulieu); male
  • M.C. (Bouché);
  • N. (Browne);
  • P. (De Gaujac); male
  • Shepherd (Wolf) male

Genders added above (when known) Lionel Laborie (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2021 (CEST)

Great, I just added them Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2021 (CEST)


I was also wondering whether it is beneficial to make separate columns for second names and nicknames? Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2021 (CEST)

We will need qualifiers for that, too. - later when polishing the thing and solving all the remaining riddles. --Olaf Simons (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2021 (CEST)

In the column 'religion' there are sometimes question marks. I suppose this means that we think someone has religion 'x', but that we are not sure. Which qualifier should I use to indicate that? Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2021 (CEST)

There is a particular qualifier "how sure is this" Property:P155 - and that should also be used if you state "presumably" on a date. --Olaf Simons (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2021 (CEST)
And do not worry about the "presumably statements you have already set - they don't do any harm. We can just add how sure statements on top.
Congrats by the way for having managed you own first mass imputs. That was the worst thing to learn and you did it. --Olaf Simons (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2021 (CEST)

Looking at the 'special FactGrid items to use on this property' stated under the qualifier "how sure is this" Property:P155, multiple seem fitting. When Lionel has marked a religious affiliation with an '?', should I for instance use 'presumably', 'possibly' or 'context-based assumption'? And what option should I choose when one person has multiple religions marked with a '?' (like 'A? Ph?'), maybe 'the sources extant do not allow a decision between the alternatives stated'? By the way, can Lionel also read this chat? Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2021 (CEST)

Sure - Lionel can read this (as everyone else); he has to decide how he wants his data stated. As you realise we can create actually any statement just as we can generate any P-Number and any Q-Object with any "Label" in any language. So consider with him, what he would love to read on his statements. Just by the way: any statement is also open to be referenced with any number of archival sources. Best --Olaf Simons (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2021 (CEST)
I would go for "context-based assumption" whenever you find a ? after a religious denomination. When there are more than one, I would indeed choose 'the sources extant do not allow a decision between the alternatives stated' Lionel Laborie (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2021 (CEST)
I will create a first visualisation once we have the religions, cool, --Olaf Simons (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2021 (CEST)

Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge and Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts are missionary organizations and so not really religious affiliations. What P-number should I best use for that, Olaf? Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2021 (CEST)

You can use the Property:P91 Membership-statement instead. --Olaf Simons (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2021 (CEST)

Just added the religions Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2021 (CEST)

And given you the Bubble graph (for quantities) above and here also the network view with the names
Great start. I spotted two problems: 1. There are two bubbles for the same denomination (Quaker/Quakers). 2. Anglicans and Anabaptists have been mixed up. A=Anglican Anab.=Anabaptist. Lionel Laborie (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2021 (CEST)

I'll take a look at it tomorrow morning Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2021 (CEST) It looks like the small quaker bubble is for quaker claimant Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2021 (CEST)

I just too the shortcut and changed the Labels on Anabaptists and Anglicans (both were not used so far by others) (Browsers might take a day to note the change).
Sophie: change Labels if that solves the problem rather than retracting and renewing statements. So far there are no other links to the new items. --Olaf Simons (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2021 (CEST)

I will, thank you for solving it, Olaf!Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2021 (CEST)

Hope I did did not mess this up with my simple solution interfering with changes you were now doing. --Olaf Simons (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2021 (CEST)
I guess I screwed this with my (presumably quick and easy) intervention. One of us has to solve it without interference. --Olaf Simons (talk)
Apologies for trying to be fast and clever - reverted and checked


Labels on religious affiliation

This is the new extended list:

We should harmonise the labels, i.e. whether to say Anglicanism, Anglican Church, Anglicans or Anglican. My present preference is "Anglican", "Baptist", "Roman Catholic". If we go for something like Church we will have a problem with groups who do not want to count as "a church". Di not know what Lionel thinks. The solution should be the same in all the languages we are establishing here. --Olaf Simons (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2021 (CEST)

Agreed. We should use the adjective in the singular => Anglican, Huguenot, Baptist…
Quaker claimant should just be Quaker P155 "questionable statement", I think. Lionel Laborie (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2021 (CEST)

I have harmonized the labels and handled the quaker claimant thing. The item for quaker claimant (Q256353) seems unnecessary now, should I delete that (and if so, how)? Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2021 (CEST)

Place of birth

How should I handle question marks and people with multiple possible places of birth? Should I use 'precision of localization' (P425) and something like 'presumably' (as we did with the dates) or should I do it in the same way as with the religions, using 'how sure is this?' (P155) and 'context-based assumption'/'the sources extant do not allow a decision between the alternatives stated'? Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2021 (CEST)

Id rather see the "How sure is this?" Property used here. --Olaf Simons (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2021 (CEST)
Lionel let me know he'd rather see the P425 property, shall I use that then? Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2021 (CEST)
Use P425 to state how precise a piece of information is (like in the vicinity, near) and P155 if you want to state how sure you are that this is the case. --Olaf Simons (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2021 (CEST)

We have got a place of birth property P82, but that should be used for towns and villages. We also have a vague "from" property if documents a statement "from Cologne" without clarifying its exact meaning.

In some cases, I do know the place of birth, so there will be opportunities to use P82. Lionel Laborie (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2021 (CEST)

If the statements in Lionel's lis refer to a nationality as used in the Early Modern Era we should create Properties for

  • Nationality in the wide sense (French, English....)
  • Citizenship ("a citizen of Geneva")
  • Regional identity (important among German students)

--Olaf Simons (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2021 (CEST)

Yes, the statements refer to the country of birth in the modern sense (France, England, Germany…) Lionel Laborie (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2021 (CEST)
I have created two properties for Nationality (P616) and Citizens right (P617). I feel we should create for special Nationality items with an adjective status like "French", "German" to avoid the idea of entities that grant rights. --Olaf Simons (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2021 (CEST)

When importing the place of birth data, is there a case in which I should use the Citizens right (P617) property? When I look at the database, I do not see cities in this column.

Should I create the special nationality items (like 'French') already, or should we first check with Lionel? Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2021 (CEST)

I have slightly mixed feelings about the Items, wondering how we will define them - German/ Germany. But let's proceed, mabe the new group of items will solve a problem. Let's risk it. --Olaf Simons (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2021 (CEST)

I have created an item for the English nationality (Q256459). Is this what you want it to look like? If yes, I will proceed with the other nationalities. Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2021 (CEST)

That's the way I would have done it. --Olaf Simons (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (CEST)
You can add a uniform description "nationality in the medieval and early modern understanding" - that will be enough to separate them from the language statements. --Olaf Simons (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2021 (CEST)
PS. Use the adjective form (looks good, actually with these nouns. I gave you French and German general descriptions
Third thoughts: the adjective will be more open - we may use that for costumes oder food... --Olaf Simons (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2021 (CEST)
And here your are - looking good. --Olaf Simons (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2021 (CEST)

Occupation/Social status

I started with clearing up the occupations/social status column. Sometimes I am unsure whether something needs a qualifier or not, those I have given the color pink. When I am unsure what qualifier to use, I have put a pink [?]. I have also tried to already give some things qualifiers, please check if those are correct/fitting. Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2021 (CEST)

Just went through the List and could condense things to 35 new career statements we will need. You find the new ones to be created in column O, I will create them. You part is: supplying good translations. I did this for some of them - into German. My source is this c 1800 English/German dictionary
You find a reference section on this page FactGrid:Authentic translation help and as you will realise: We are lacking something like an English/French section. So try to find a good dictionary on Google Books, add it to the help section and use that for the French translation where one has to expect a particular contemporary terminology. Once you have finished I will create these statements and we will look at the remaining strange things. --Olaf Simons (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2021 (CEST)
  • The Career statements (P165) should be mostly ready.
  • Statements as in a Woman from Winchester will get woman as status and Winchester will be not a qualifier but a regular (P295) Statement "from" - the places should be all in the machine.
  • I am not quite sure what to do with the rich and poor statements. They should get their own properties and they will not be part of the career statement.
  • The qualifiers that state the status of Fathers or Husbands need the Q numbers of the respective "career statements"
  • We also have an employer Property and I think Bruno Belhoste created a Property for servants, to state who they served.

My recommendation is: mark things you do not feed into the machine on the Lionel's first spreadsheet by colouring the respective cells in red. ...time to start the weekend. --Olaf Simons (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2021 (CEST)

I checked the pink statements in the spreadsheet. I think it's important to separate social status from occupation. I put any kind of information I could gather in that column, but it needs to be separated. Some are titles (gentleman, baronet, lady, sieur de…), others actual jobs and several individuals actually had both. For "shop maid", it should be under maid and perhaps use a property indicating that she worked in shop, or just leave it because it's already stated in the label description anyway. Likewise, "violist" should be entered as musician and then add a property for his instrument. I answered the rest in the spreadsheet.
  • Why not leave out statements for rich/poor altogether. It is already mentioned in the label statements anyway. Unless if there is a specific property for how a person is described in the sources.
  • Family relations are all stated in the last column of the spreadsheet.

Have a nice weekend Lionel Laborie (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2021 (CEST)

We will have (without disadvantage) overlapping statements. I.e. statements on te career side that will also become statements on the aristocratic tenure. It is no problem. The shop might can have her own statement. It would be an ideal if we made further statements on these statements. Like: if the database knew "these 12 items are servant status, these are 200 are craftsmen etc. since the software allows us to ask questions into the connnections. We can ask for different columns to be generated from information which we stored on the job-items or on the religions. The religions should be structured as well... --Olaf Simons (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2021 (CEST)

I saw in the spreadsheet that there are some items that need to be created (such as 'English court' and 'Bank of Scotland'). Shall I start doing that? I saw that you were working on the carreers this morning, Olaf, so I'm asking in case I unnecessarily interfere. Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2021 (CEST)

Could English Court simply fall under "employer" or similar category?

Tribes

I wanted to check a couple of things related to importing the tribe column:

- Should I use the property P494 (Tribe)?

- I suppose I need to create items for the twelve tribes. What description should I give them? Should I go for something general like "one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel" or something more specific like "one of the twelve missionary tribes the French Prophets divided into after 1708".

- Some people are appointed apostles to their tribe. How do I import that into FactGrid? Is there a qualifier I can use for that?

Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2021 (CEST)

No, the "tribe" property would be misleading. These are not Tribes like the Biblical tribes - family clans with chieftains and adherence by birth.
But I do not know what they are. Are they organisational units? In which case we could use the subsidiary Property P419 as a qualifier to the present "adherence" statements.
If they are groups where members meet like Lodges in Freemasonry - then we should turn them into first level membership statements of the P91 property.
Lionel has to explain what exactly it meant to be in one of these "tribes". In any case: you can create them and you can state that they are subsidiaries (on the French prophets item) and vice versa that "French Prophets" is the net higher hierarchical level on the site of each Tribe.
So create the Items and we set surrounding statements on Lionel's advice right before the input. --Olaf Simons (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2021 (CEST)
We will need clear markers that these are not the Biblical tribes. I guess this could be the good solution: Tribe of Menasseh --Olaf Simons (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2021 (CEST)

Looks good! I'll adjust all tribes to the example of Menasseh then. Sophie de Leeuw (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2021 (CEST)

Correct my mistaken Apostrophe to French Prophets' - and here your search: all the Tribes of the French Prophets --Olaf Simons (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2021 (CEST)
After their failure to resurrect one of their members from the dead in 1708, the French Prophets divided its followers into 12 missionary tribes that were meant to disperse, according to the 12 tribes of Israel. That's why they bear the same name. Essentially it refer to a group within the movement.