Techquila

Today's entry although quite long does not introduce much in the way of new concepts. The only new event type introduced here is a "meeting-event" to describe the party at the Rose Tavern:

Then with Dr. Fairbrother (whom I met there) to the Rose tavern, and called for some wine, and there met fortunately with Mr. Turner of our office, and sent for his wife, and were very merry (they being come to settle their son here), and sent also for Mr. Sanchy, of Magdalen...

In this quote, the concept of "visit" that we have used so far (a person travels to a location with the intention of being at that location or interacting with another person at that location) is not really applicable to the coincidence of meeting Mr. Turner. So I have introduced a new event type "meeting". However, the later arrivals of Mrs. Turner and Mr. Sanchy are modelled as "visit" events because the text makes it clear that the reason for them coming to the tavern is to meet one or more of the people already there.

This raises an interesting question - is a "meeting" a more general case of a "visit"? In one respect, it is - a meeting could be intentional or unintentional. In another respsect it is not - a meeting involves at least two people, whereas I have previously use a "visit" to model a person travelling to a location. Possibly this points to a need to review the definition of "visit" and refactor those associations where only one person is involved to be a "journey" rather than a "visit" and restrict "visit" events to involving at least two people, one of whom travelled to the location of the visit.

The other change worth noting is that the subject of Robert Pepy's estate has come up again. To link this to the previous mention of this subject (on 13th July 1661), I have added a subject indicator to this topic both for this entry's topic map and the 13th July topic map.

New and updated topic map files:

Topic map for this entry.

Updated topic map for the 13th July 1661 entry.

Family relationships ontology.

Core diary ontology.

People in the diary.

Places in the diary.

In today's entry, reference is made to Robert Barnwell. As well as creating a topic for Mr. Barnwell in the people topic map, I have added some additional information taken from an annotation on the pepysdiary.com site. In particular that Robert Barnwell was the steward of Hinchingbroke from at the earliest 1655.

The office of Steward of Hinchingbroke is modelled as a topic, and the holding of that office by Robert Barnwell is also a topic.

[robert-barnwell : man = "Robert Barnwell"; "Barnwell, Robert"
@"http://www.pepysdiary.com/p/1091.php"]
[robert-barnwell-steward : office-holding-event
= "Robert Barnwell was steward at Hinchingbroke from at least 1655"]
[steward-of-hitchingbroke : office = "Steward of Hinchingbroke"]

Next, the fact that this office was held by Mr. Barnwell from as late as 1655 is modelled using an event occurrence association with a topic for the year 1655 playing the role "start-before". At the moment I don't have any information about when he left that office, so the occurs association only has one role.

[year-1655 : date = "1655"; "16650100"

@"http://www.techquila.com/psi/date-time/?gDateTime=1655"]

occurs(robert-barnwell-steward : event,

year-1655 : start-before)

The office held by Robert Barnwell was conferred upon him by his Lord, Sir Edward Montagu, Earl of Sandwich. This requires a new role of "office-conferer" which is included in the participation association for the office-holding event.

participation( robert-barnwell-steward : office-holder,

steward-of-hitchingbroke : office-held,

sir-edward-montagu : office-conferer )

Finally, it is worth also modelling that the office of "Steward of Hinchingbroke" has a responsibility for Hinchingbroke. I have modelled the responsibility as being that of the office, not of the man - the reason being that when the holder of the office changes, the responsibility passes automatically from the old office holder to the new office holder, it is therefore more logical to see the responsibility as being something "anchored on" the office and not on the office holder. In general I feel that an office- or role-centered ontology is a useful and accurate way of reflecting the human make-up of organisations.

responsible-for(

steward-of-hitchingbroke : responsible,

hinchingbroke : responsibility)

The events of the day are modelled as normal - there is a single dining event (with Robert Barnwell as the guest), and two visiting events one to Portholme and one to Hinchingbroke (neatly closing the loop with Robert Barnwell!)

New and updated topic map files:

Topic map for this entry.

Family relationships ontology.

Core diary ontology.

People in the diary.

Places in the diary.

The topic map for this diary entry records two linked events and it is worth examining these in a bit of detail. Much of the start of the entry I have ignored for now as it deals with a general process of arranging the estate of Robert Pepys. The events I have modelled are the return of Mr Phillips from London to Brampton, and the disucssion between Samuel Pepys, John Pepys and Mr Phillips regarding the estate of Robert.

The travelling is modelled using a topic in much the same way as Samuel's journey to Brampton was:

[event-16610713-1 : travelling-event
= "Lewis Phillips travels from London to Brampton"]
participation(event-16610713-1 : event, lewis-phillips : traveller)
route-taken( event-16610713-1 : event, london : from, brampton : to)

The difference here is that we are not told exactly when this journey occurs, we only have the date range of the entry to go on. The diary entry makes it clear that Mr. Phillips arrival was towards the end of the period covered, which means that we can justifiably rule out any day before 8th July as the start date for the travel, and we know that he arrived by the end of the period covered. So we have earliest and latest bounds for both the start and end of the event and use these to make a 4-ary association describing when the event occurs.

occurs(event-16610713-1 : event,

entry-start : start-after,

today : start-before,

entry-start : end-after,

today : end-before)

The second event (the discussion) must follow the first as Mr. Phillips must have arrived in Brampton before having the discussion. So we can use the first event as an earliest bound on the discussion event and the end of the diary entry period as a ltest bound.

[event-16610713-2 : discussion

= "Samuel and John Pepys discuss Robert Pepys' estate with Mr. Phillips"]

occurs( event-16610713-2 : event,

event-16610713-1 : start-after,

today : end-before )

participation( event-16610713-2 : event,

john-pepys : interlocutor,

samuel-pepys : interlocutor,

lewis-phillips : interlocutor)

event-subject( event-16610713-2 : event,

robert-pepys-estate : subject)

[robert-pepys-estate = "The estate of Robert Pepys"]

Note that for now, the estate of Robert Pepys is simply named and not assigned a subject identifier - if future diary entries make further reference to it, it may be necessary to create and assign a subject identifier for this topic.

New and updated topic map files:

Topic map for this entry.

Family relationships ontology.

Core diary ontology.

People in the diary.

Places in the diary.