[Crm-sig] Modelling an Actor carrying out an action at the Behest of Another

Pierre Choffé choffepierre at gmail.com
Tue Apr 14 19:40:56 EEST 2020


Hi George, hi all,

What about a "Representation Activity", subclass of E7 Activity, that would be "carried out" by the Actor "representing" a Group "in the frame of" another activity ?

Let's say George has 2 activities A1 and A2. Only A2 is carried out as some sort of representation activity.

(George) "carried out" (A1) that resulted in (Something).

(George) "carried out" (A2) that resulted in (Something Else).

(George) "carried out" (Representation Activity) "in the frame of" (A2)

(Representation Activity) "was conducted on behest of" (Group)

Does this capture the semantic of George carrying out an activity as representative of Takin.Solutions ? This would be a light solution which would just require to create a specific event and two associated properties.

All the very best to you and all at CRM-SIG,
Pierre

On Tue, Apr 14th, 2020 at 5:47 PM, George Bruseker <george.bruseker at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Dear all,
> 
> 
> Here is a minor modelling issue which may or may not find your interest in
> these times of quarantine. The modelling conundrum is the following:
> 
> 
> Sometimes in an activity, the activity is carried out by a named
> individual but it is carried out on the behest of an organization or
> someone acts in their capacity as the representative of an organization.
> 
> 
> Examples: 
> 
> 
> The Conceptual Modelling (E7) is carried out by George Bruseker (E21) as
> representative of Takin.Solutions (E74)
> 
> 
> The Diplomatic Reception (E7) is carried out by Ms. Diplomat (E21) as
> representative of the Canadian Government
> 
> 
> Ie: we want to say that at this time (when E7 occurred) this actor (E21)
> did the action (p14) but also to qualify this participation not through a
> role but to say that this person was not acting as an individual but at
> the time was employed by, working for, acting on the behest of some other
> entity E74.
> 
> 
> One the one hand you could say, just document that the actor was a member
> of some group through a join and leave event and then you could calculate
> that they were a member of that group at the time of the event. I think
> this doesn't work because a) it is obtuse and b) it cannot be inferred
> that because I am a member of some group at some time that the actions I
> take in that time span are then me acting on behalf of that group.
> Obviously, I guess. 
> 
> 
> So next potential solution. I think that p14.1 in the role of, won't cut
> it, because that would only point to a role 'diplomat' 'conceptual
> modeller' whatever. This does not create the relation to the instance of
> E39 actor which the E21 acts on behalf of/under the auspices of.
> 
> 
> You can't just say that the E21 p107i is current or former member of E74
> because a) acting on behalf of someone else doesn't necessarily imply
> membership in a group together and b) this will not say that the person
> _at that time_ was acting on behalf of / in relation to the other Actor
> anyway (see above).
> 
> 
> A classic solution might be to create a one person E74 group called
> 'representative of x organization on this night' and then put the person
> in that group and then have the group carry out the action. While
> logically it sounds like a solution (and doesn't call for new additions to
> the model) but it would be counterintuitive to a user, creating entities
> that the user wouldn't imagine to think of or use.
> 
> 
> Another option would be to do event partioning and then say that the
> person participated in a sub activity in which they were 'representing' x.
> I also think this creates a lot. of complication and is not self
> explanatory as a modelling solution (half the time you should look for
> actors carrying out the activity under p14 and half the time under a sub
> event of E7 with a special type). 
> 
> 
> So I don't find any of my imagined solutions very satisfactory. What do
> other people think? Does anyone have a solution that I haven't thought of
> with existing CRM mechanics? If there isn't a pre-existing solution, do
> you ideas on how to cover this scenario? 
> 
> 
> I encounter it relatively frequently.
> 
> 
> One solution I could imagine would be a new .1 type property off the PC14
> class that would be something like 'as representative of'. I am not wedded
> to such a solution, but I suggest it because I think it might link to a
> more general issue that it is difficult to express 'manner' in a
> grammatical sense with CRM and somehow the .1 properties aid with this
> important kind of construct. 
> 
> 
> Anyhow just food for thought.
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> George
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20200414/55e35510/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list