[Crm-sig] Issue: Activity Plan

Matthew Stiff matthew at matthewstiff.com
Fri Nov 6 00:46:45 EET 2009


Hi Christian, 

Agreed on your first point. On the second I did think about whether
"duration" would be okay in the rewording I suggested for Martin's property
but decided that the fact that the duration was anchored by a start and end
point was implicit in Time-Span itself. The example I gave below "Duration
of the Ming Dynasty" is one of the examples given in the CRM for E62
Time-Span.

Best wishes, 

Matthew

Dr Matthew Stiff
19 Riverside Road
Oxford
OX2 0HT

(t)           +44 1865 425982
(m)         +44 7939 151510

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian-Emil Ore [mailto:c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no] 
Sent: 05 November 2009 08:47
To: Matthew Stiff
Cc: 'crm-sig'
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: Activity Plan

CRM is defined to be retrospective and not talk about the future. So the 
"is intended" has to be replaced by "was intended". If we want the 
activity plan to 'talk' about time spans in the future we have to go to 
the categorical level like in the FRBRoo treatment of manifestations.

Secondly 'duration' is a result of a measurement and is not a time-span.

The timespan class is somewhat odd and the instances are a kind of data 
packages: (duration, fuzzy defined start points and end points (P82 P83) 
etc).

regards
Christian-Emil






On 05.11.2009 00:13, Matthew Stiff wrote:
> Another thought (and sorry, this may be CRM rustiness on my part) but how
> would we deal with the fact that the associated Time-Span of an Activity
> Plan might not be fixed by clearly identifiable points in time? E.g. The
> Activity Plan will be executed as soon as it stops raining or as soon as
the
> economy picks up. I was not sure whether the Scope Note of Time-Span would
> cater for this unless something like "The first period of dry weather
> following Wednesday 4th November, 2009" would fit the bill (and it seems
to)
> since that would be as precisely anchored in time as "The duration of the
> Ming Dynasty". I'm probably worrying unnecessarily.... :-)
> 
> Best wishes, 
> 
> Matthew
> 
> Dr Matthew Stiff
> 19 Riverside Road
> Oxford
> OX2 0HT
> 
> (t)           +44 1865 425982
> (m)         +44 7939 151510
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr]
On
> Behalf Of Matthew Stiff
> Sent: 04 November 2009 22:51
> To: 'martin'
> Cc: 'crm-sig'
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: Activity Plan
> 
> Thanks Martin. 
> 
> How about
> 
> "is intended to be executed during (is intended duration of execution of)
:
> E52 Time-Span"
> 
> I do think we should include links to items and places, but also to
actors.
> How do we deal with the fact that the plan may not be specific about any
of
> these things? E.g. the plan may refer to a particular place or to a type
of
> place, a particular object or a type of object, a particular actor or a
type
> of actor? The difference between classes and instances of classes. 
> 
> Best wishes, 
> 
> Matthew
> 
> Dr Matthew Stiff
> 19 Riverside Road
> Oxford
> OX2 0HT
> 
> (t)           +44 1865 425982
> (m)         +44 7939 151510
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: martin [mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr] 
> Sent: 04 November 2009 20:57
> To: Matthew Stiff
> Cc: 'crm-sig'
> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: Activity Plan
> 
> Hi Matthew,
> 
> "execution was intended for (is intended execution time of) : E52
Time-Span"
> 
> subproperty of "refers to".
> 
> "This property associates an Activity Plan with the future time-span the
> planned activity was
> intended to be executed. An Activity Plan may or may not foresee a
> particular future time-span
> of execution."
> 
> Example: Planning an exhibition for certain dates.
> 
> May be we should also provide a link to the venue, and the items to be
> present?
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Martin
> 
> Matthew Stiff wrote:
>> Hello Martin (and sorry for long silence!) :-)
>>
>> I think this is really useful. One observation is that in practice
> "Activity
>> Plans" are often dusted down and reused, but in doing so they have to be
>> checked against their applicability to each instance of an activity so to
>> all intents and purposes they are "new" plans.
>>
>> I genuinely don't understand what you mean by the second of your proposed
>> properties - Could you provide a scope note and an example for this and I
>> will try to think if there is a clearer way of expressing it? 
>>
>> Best wishes, 
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> Dr Matthew Stiff
>> 19 Riverside Road
>> Oxford
>> OX2 0HT
>>
>> (t)           +44 1865 425982
>> (m)         +44 7939 151510
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr]
> On
>> Behalf Of martin
>> Sent: 31 October 2009 13:05
>> To: crm-sig
>> Subject: [Crm-sig] Issue: Activity Plan
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I wonder if we should introduce a class "Activity Plan" IsA E29 Design or
>> Procedure:
>>
>> Scope note:
>>
>> This class comprises plans to execute instances of E7 Activity in some
>> foreseen future. The planned
>> activities may have any degree of complexity or elaboration. Plans may be
>> made with or without intention
>> to execute them, or the intention to execute them may be abandon before
>> their execution. The actual
>> intention to stick to a plan could be seen as a kind of activity using
the
>> plan.
>>
>> Properties:
>>
>> "planned to execute activity of type(is type of activity planned by): E55
>> Type"
>>
>> "execution was intended for (is intended execution time of) : E52
> Time-Span"
>>
>> I believe this simple model would close the known gap of the CRM to the
>> whole world of planning,
>> we have so far not addressed, but nevertheless is an integral part also
of
>> historical reasoning.
>>
>>
>> Comments welcome.
>>
>> Martin
> 
> 





More information about the Crm-sig mailing list