otherwise platform-independent, be the.

The terms comprising a kinship terminology can be described by a logic constructed without reference to genealogy using user judgements on products of the terms themselves.

However, this logic only defines the terms and the products of terms (e.g. father of father = grandfather, which is derived from x calls y father, y calls z father, x calls z grandfather). This only governs this form, and a ‘default’ manner of instantiating this logic over a given group of people and their relatives. The logic is different for different terminologies, though there are a relatively few ‘families’ of logics. So far in our research all of these logics have additionally comformed to structural criteria which defines them as algebras. The semantics of such a terminological logic (as with any logic), is simply the assignment of a product to a value (kinterm/not a kin term in this case). Meaning is relegated to other processes.

This does not limit in any way how these terms are instantiated (since the terminological logic is determined by the internal relations between terms, not against geneaological data). So even people who might use ‘mum’ for ‘step-mum’, will make the same judgements of relations between terms divorced from specific people. The instantiation of mum for step-mum is determined by non-terminological issues.

What it does do is define a basic structure for people to build on that can be distributed with high fidelity. Even if a terminological logic is unique to a people, to use it effectively a solid foundation has advantages over people having to memorize for a group of 1000 people they live with 999,000 different relationships, instead only needing to learn between 2 and 20 terms, or so, which combined with the specific logic of their terminology allows people to determine a relationship between themselves with a single common relationship (or absense thereof).

Instantiation (sometimes, not quite correctly, called pragmatics) relates to how people actually use these relationships. Parts of the process of instantiation are probably driven by at least strategies, if not logics, and represents a lot of different (and not always consistent) cultural systems interacting together, some more arbitrary and personal, others shared to a considerable extent.

What does this have to do with the prospects for ‘relationship’ vocabularies? I agree with Shirky that the Relationship vocabulary is a loser. It is a list of terms, with no particular structure between them, allowing no baseline interpretation upon which to build the specific meanings that arise in instantiation or use that form most of the comment on this page. However, it would be possible to build such a beast as a combination of logic and terminologies. However, it might not be possible to build a universal one, as the relationships between these terms will vary from culture to culture (and more and less terms will be necessary). This is a general problem for all relational schemas, and current XML related technologies are not up to the job in their present formulations, in particular RDF.

However, it is probably possible to build a formal description of each one, and to represent this in a form that permits comparison, and in many cases translation. This requires a more dynamic form of Resource description than currently exists. This is a thread we are working on at the included URL. But a single set of definitions for any relational terminology is fruitless unless there is a single logic underlying these.

Developing bulletin board visualizations (.pdf)

Roundup of some recent discussions about codifying relationships in online social networks

Reflecting on the classic relationship vocabulary flap of just last week, I am shocked, shocked! that no one (that I

Reflecting on the classic relationship vocabulary flap of just last week, I am shocked, shocked! that no one (that I

Reflecting on the classic relationship vocabulary flap of just last week, I am shocked, shocked! that no one (that I

Oh dear. Now if you’d said conditioned by their economic substructure, then maybe I could go along with you.

All this kinship and networks talk of late is making me realise that I should have been listening at University during kinship courses. Shame on me. It has also forced me to dig out old papers I wrote, from which…

All this kinship and networks talk of late is making me realise that I should have been listening at University during kinship courses. Shame on me. It has also forced me to dig out old papers I wrote, from which…