[crm-sig] Gerundifying events

Nicholas Crofts nickcrofts at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 29 11:32:49 EET 2001


Dear all,
The problem of naming activities that Tony raises seems to me to be primarily grammatical. If we construct phrases where the Activity class is the subject or object of the phrase (a "nominal group" in more fashionable terminology) then we need a noun form, and the gerund form, naturally, sounds horrible. Adding 'event' to the gerund (a variation on Tony's second proposal) would correct this, e.g. "Nick was born in a Giving birth event" effectively transforms the gerund into a noun phrase so it sounds long winded but isn't actually wrong. 
However, if we try to construct phrases where the activity event is the verb of the phrase - which we might well want to do at some point since actions are, in a sense, verbs, we would need a verbal phrase, preferably conjugated. e.g. Valerie gave birth to Nick. So far, we haven't attempted to make constructions like this since we have always implicitly used the links as verbs and the entities as nouns, which can lead to some very unweildy constructions, something along the following lines..  Valerie (in the role of mother) took part in a Giving Birth Event which also involded Nick (in the role of offspring).
It occurs to me that the question of arriving at 'natural' sounding constructions is a separate issue to the question of finding clear and unambiguous names for entities. We could provide guidelines for 'reading' from the CRM structures which make use of variants of the entity names according to their grammatical role: something like a verbal form and a nominal form, for example.
Cheers
nick crofts
 
  Tony Gill <tony_gill at notes.rlg.org> wrote: Hmm, "Birth Giving" sounds very peculiar in English, "Giving Birth" is a 
much more natural-sounding expression.

Here's version 2 of the "gerundified" list, with Nick's helpful 
corrections to my first hastily-put-together-before-going-on-vacation 
attempt, plus a counter-proposal:

CRM EVENTS - "GERUNDIFIED" LIST version 2

E7 - - - - Activity (Acting)
E8 - - - - - Acquisition (Acquiring)
E9 - - - - - Move (Moving)
E10 - - - - - Transfer of Custody (Transferring Custody)
E11 - - - - - Modification (Modifying)
E12 - - - - - - Production (Producing)
E13 - - - - - Attribute Assignment (Attribute Assigning)
E14 - - - - - - Condition Assessment (Condition Assessing)
E15 - - - - - - Identifier Assignment (Identifier Assigning)
E16 - - - - - - Measurement (Measuring)
E17 - - - - - - Type Assignment (Type Assigning)
E65 - - - - - Conceptual Creation (Conceptually Creating)
E66 - - - - - Formation (Forming)
E63 - - - - Beginning of Existence (Beginning of Existence)
E67 - - - - - Birth (Giving Birth)
E12 - - - - - Production (Producing)
E65 - - - - - Conceptual Creation (Conceptually Creating)
E66 - - - - - Formation (Forming)
E64 - - - - End of Existence (Ending of Existence)
E6 - - - - - Destruction (Destroying)
E68 - - - - - Dissolution (Dissolving)
E69 - - - - - Death (Dying)

However, I *am* a little concerned about how the gerundified events will 
fit together with their corresponding properties; for example:

[E7 Acting] 
[E28 Conceptual Object]
[E12 Producing] 
[E24 Physical Man-Made Stuff]
[E67 Giving Birth] 
[E21 Person]

Sounds much less coherent and understandable than:

[E7 Activity] 
[E28 Conceptual Object]
[E12 Production] 
[E24 Physical Man-Made Stuff]
[E67 Birth] 
[E21 Person]

Perhaps another way to deal with the potential verb/noun confusion in the 
Event hierarchy would be to explicitly state that the entities are events:

CRM EVENTS - "EVENT EXPLICIT" LIST version 1

E7 - - - - Activity (Action Event)
E8 - - - - - Acquisition (Acquisition Event)
E9 - - - - - Move (Movement Event)
E10 - - - - - Transfer of Custody (Transfer of Custody Event)
E11 - - - - - Modification (Modification Event)
E12 - - - - - - Production (Production Event)
E13 - - - - - Attribute Assignment (Attribute Assignment Event)
E14 - - - - - - Condition Assessment (Condition Assessment Event)
E15 - - - - - - Identifier Assignment (Identifier Assigment Event)
E16 - - - - - - Measurement (Measurement Event)
E17 - - - - - - Type Assignment (Type Assignment Event)
E65 - - - - - Conceptual Creation (Conceptual Creation Event)
E66 - - - - - Formation (Formation Event)
E63 - - - - Beginning of Existence (Beginning of Existence Event)
E67 - - - - - Birth (Birth Event)
E12 - - - - - Production (Production Event)
E65 - - - - - Conceptual Creation (Conceptual Creation Event)
E66 - - - - - Formation (Formation Event)
E64 - - - - End of Existence (End of Existence Event)
E6 - - - - - Destruction (Destruction Event)
E68 - - - - - Dissolution (Dissolution Event)
E69 - - - - - Death (Death Event)

This would then give us:

[E7 Action Event] 
[E28 Conceptual Object]
[E12 Production Event] 
[E24 Physical Man-Made Stuff]
[E67 Birth Event] 
[E21 Person]

This seems more intuitive than the gerund forms to me... Comments?

Cheers,

T.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Gill <> tony.gill at notes.rlg.org
Research Libraries Group <> http://www.rlg.org/
1200 Villa Street, Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Voice: +1 (650) 691-2304 <> Fax: +1 (650) 964-1461







martin at ics.forth.gr
Sent by: owner-crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
27/11/2001 08:55 PM


To: nickcrofts at yahoo.com
cc: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [crm-sig] Gerundifying events


What about "birth giving" ? In conjunction with the property it may read
better:

Nick - was born in - birth giving - by mother ....??

Martin

>
> A couple of typos: "Beginning if Existence" should be "Beginning of
> Existence". (Though the metaphysical implications of the former are
> more interesting...;-) "Aqcuiring" should be "Acquiring". Interesting
> that you didn't deal with birth (hesitating about the awkwardness of
> "birthing" perhaps?). It could be gerindificated as "giving Birth" or
> as "Being Born", depending on who the subject of the action is seen as.
> I would prefer "Giving Birth" as none of the other activities use
> passive forms. As I recall, the "potential for confusion" was related
> to the fact that some verbs are also nouns, so "E12 Production" might
> sound like a thing, as in "an RLG-Speilberg production". Using gerunds
> avoids this confusion. Expressing everything in gerund form is more
> consistent too. Cheers
> Nick
> Tony Gill wrote: Folks,
>
> In the Actions, I was assigned: "TG to propose new names for activities
> in the event hierarchy using gerunds when there is potential for
> confusion."
>
> Well, I can't remember what the "potential for confusion" was now, so
> I've "gerundified" them all:
>
> E7 - - - - Activity (Acting)
> E8 - - - - - Acquisition (Aqcuiring)
> E9 - - - - - Move (Moving)
> E10 - - - - - Transfer of Custody (Transferring Custody)
> E11 - - - - - Modification (Modifying)
> E12 - - - - - - Production (Producing)
> E13 - - - - - Attribute Assignment (Attribute Assigning)
> E14 - - - - - - Condition Assessment (Condition Assessing)
> E15 - - - - - - Identifier Assignment (Identifier Assigning)
> E16 - - - - - - Measurement (Measuring)
> E17 - - - - - - Type Assignment (Type Assigning)
> E65 - - - - - Conceptual Creation (Conceptually Creating)
> E66 - - - - - Formation (Forming)
> E63 - - - - Beginning of Existence (Beginning if Existence)
> E67 - - - - - Birth
> E12 - - - - - Production (Producing)
> E65 - - - - - Conceptual Creation (Conceptually Creating)
> E66 - - - - - Formation (Forming)
> E64 - - - - End of Existence (Ending of Existence)
> E6 - - - - - Destruction (Destroying)
> E68 - - - - - Dissolution (Dissolving)
> E69 - - - - - Death (Dying)
>
> Cheers,
>
> T.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tony Gill <> tony.gill at notes.rlg.org
> Research Libraries Group <> http://www.rlg.org/
> 1200 Villa Street, Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
> Voice: +1 (650) 691-2304 <> Fax: +1 (650) 964-1461
>
>
> Nicholas Crofts
> DAEL / DSI
> rue David-Dufour 5
> Case postale 22
> CH - 1211 Genève 8
> tél +41 22 327 5271
> fax +41 22 328 4382
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalised at My Yahoo!.





Nicholas Crofts
DAEL / DSI
rue David-Dufour 5
Case postale 22
CH - 1211 Genève 8
tél +41 22 327 5271
fax +41 22 328 4382


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalised at My Yahoo!.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20011129/cb76ba9e/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list