[Crm-sig] Activity Partitioning (was Actors acting for other Actors)
martin at ics.forth.gr
Fri Apr 17 20:13:40 EEST 2020
Very good remarks! but...
I may say that this discussion runs headlong against the wall of
providing enough information from the real world in order to feed
artificial intelligence - you seem yourself to be critical about it.
I can make a qualified statement about that, because I assigned a whole
Master thesis about reasoning from parts to wholes in activities, and
teams and instrumentation used in activities to a student. In the
framework of the European Project 3D-COFORM, about digitization and
creation of 3D models, we could show that even when you intend to
monitor completely manually what is going on in a technical process, the
effort becomes unrealistically high. If you are interested, I can make
the whole thesis available.
Therefore we need inferences that provide reasonable likelihoods: " if
there is the activity of writing a book which was carried out by a
Person, I don’t think it is legitimate to conclude that the part of
writing a chapter was also carried out by that same person." Correct,
but it is most reasonable to assume in absence of other evidence.
Indeed, historical information almost exclusively of such kind of
reasoning, and a large part of empirical natural science as well.
Extending inferences in binary logic with inferences of likelihood is
in my eyes the challenge of the future, and not attempting to model the
world until binary logic can deal with it completely. Likelihoods of
such inferences can, in enough cases, be approximated by actual
distributions. For instance, in a certain context, you may be able to
estimate how many writers let chapters write by other people. This is a
research agenda I share with other computer scientists.
Please also note, that E4 Period continues to be IsA STV.
Please also note, that the formalization of the CRM does NOT take
inverse properties to support different inferences from forward ones,
and always imply each other. Hence, using P9i does not make any
difference in CRM logic.
All the best,
On 4/17/2020 6:53 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Dear all,
> This discussion (and the partitioning aspect of it) reminds me of a
> niggling concern that came up in the Linked Art work about scope note
> of P9 when applied to activities.
> In particular, P9 only talks about the part being a subset of the
> phenomena of the whole:
> This property associates an instance of E4 Period with another
> instance of E4 Period that is defined by a subset of the phenomena
> that define the former.
> To what extent can we infer knowledge through the P9 link, if any? For
> example, if there is the activity of writing a book which was carried
> out by a Person, I don’t think it is legitimate to conclude that the
> part of writing a chapter was also carried out by that same person.
> If X consists_of Y, and X carried_out_by Z, then it is not necessarily
> the case that Y carried_out_by Z, due to the open world assumption.
> It could be that X was also carried out by A, B and C, but that was
> just not stated. Therefore Y could have been carried out by anyone.
> And the same argument for all other relationships and properties.
> Do we even know that the part is within the same temporal period as
> the whole? I don’t think so, given that P4 allows alternative opinions
> about it expressed by assigning multiple Time-Spans to the same E2
> Temporal Entity, rather than creating a new E2 and having a 1:1
> relationship with TimeSpan. So the part could occur temporally within
> an undocumented alternative opinion about the timespan. We would thus
> instead need to also assert P117 occurs during … which is not a
> sub-property of P9 or vice versa.
> P9 is a sub property of P10, which has a domain and range of Spacetime
> Volume… so this will need to change with the change of STVs no longer
> being a parent class of Period? At which point we could ensure that P9
> implies both P117 and some spatial equivalent?
> Conversely, it seems that P9i forms part of IS a strong assertion. If
> we assert that the part was carried out by A, then the whole MUST have
> been carried out by at least A, because the carrying-out of the part
> is a subset of the carrying-out of the whole. Thus, we should prefer
> to use P9i, as it enables stronger inferences and understanding. But
> … then if we assert that an Activity is part of a Period (rather than
> merely occurs during it), then the carrying-out-ness is a part of the
> phenomena of the Period … which cannot be carried out as it’s not an
> Result: :head-exploding-emoji:
> For now we have chosen to ignore these issues in linked art for the
> sake of sanity and convenience. However if there is guidance or
> improvements that can be made, we would be happy to contribute to
> those discussions! 😊
> The original issue:
> *Dr. Robert Sanderson*, **Semantic Architect | Getty Digital |
> getty.edu <http://getty.edu/>
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 8035 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Crm-sig