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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Apr 23 11:42:53 EEST 2020

Dear Francesco,

I support very much your arguments. I currently see at least 5 distinct 
cases, I'll summarize the next days.

Just a quick remark: Please do not use the label "general" in this 
sense: "has_general_activity <more general activity>**.", because we 
have conflicting interpretations, and this is an open issue.

Use "has wider activity"  or "extended activity" or so.

Chrysoula will assign an ISSUE number.

All the best,


On 4/23/2020 1:28 AM, Francesco Beretta wrote:
> Dear George, Martin, Rob, all
> Thank you for this very interesting and relevant discussion which 
> definitely belongs to CRMsoc. I'd kindly ask those who can, to create 
> an issue in the CRMsoc documentation, with these emails, in order to 
> make this discussion more accessible. Also, in my opinion, this rich 
> discussion shows the limits of a mailing list: it would be very useful 
> to split and regroup the different sub-questions and answers within 
> different threads (e.g in a forum) and it takes a lot of time to read 
> and reorder all the points of view — in the own mind or on 'paper'. In 
> the end, only a few people will have the time and the motivation of 
> doing this, while the interest of the issue would deserve discussion 
> by a wider community.
> This said, I think three different levels appear and are partly mixed 
> up: a phenomenal, an epistemological and a technical. And this makes 
> the issue even more difficult to solve, at least to the extent that 
> these different levels are not differentiated.
> On the phenomenal level the question is: what is the modelled 
> phenomenon ? A personal, time-related quality or skill of the person 
> in charge of the activity ? or the fact that he/she acts as 
> representative of an institution, as a more general activity ? or with 
> a specific mission in this case ? or because he/she is employed by an 
> organization and carries out that activity within that framework ? It 
> seems difficult to have a unique way of modelling all these different 
> possible aspects of reality.
> Also, the perception of them depends on the point of view of the 
> observer, as social sciences teach us. Even in natural science, 
> objectivity is a matter of convention and the model of reality is only 
> one of the possible representations of it, not yet falsified. This is 
> even more true for social phenomena, even if one limits oneself to the 
> level of pure information. Choosing between phases, time-limited 
> qualities of entities or events to model these social facts is 
> therefore as much the result of epistemological choices as it is the 
> result of the comtemplation of the phenomenal reality as such. 
> Definitely an issue for CRMsoc where the epistemological approach 
> should be wider then the one in CMRbase. Assuming that the modelled 
> domain is the one of /social/ states of affairs.
> And finally there is the techical issue. We try to model this complex 
> reality, and all these different perspectives, with simple, limited 
> constructs like (RDFS) classes and properties, then —given the 
> richness of the phenomena— we are obliged to introduce additional 
> constructs, such as properties of properties (14.1 etc.), property 
> classes (PC) or by splitting events in sub-events through 
> partitioning, which are not really specified in the standard, or at 
> least not in a very visible way for the community.
> During the 12 years of the symogih.org experience 
> <http://symogih.org/?q=type-of-knowledge-unit-classes-tree> we had 
> long discussions on this issue (without beeing able to really answer 
> it) : knowing that a person is involved in an event and has thus a 
> /role/ in it, are the aforementioned phenomena characteristic of the 
> person, of the role, or of both in the context of that event ? the 
> answer depends on the modelled phenomenon and on the point of view of 
> the data producer.
> Technically speaking one could express this in (at least) two ways:
> 1.
> <modeling> a Activity ;
>     label “modeling activity carried out by George, as a member of 
> Takin> ;
>     carried_out_by _[actor-with-contextual-quality]*.
> _[actor-with-contextual-quality] has_actor <george> ;
>     has_quality <time related skill>**.
>     [or]
>     has_motivation <specific mission for this activity>**.
>     [or]
>     has_general_activity <more general activity>**.
> * blank node
> ** the corresponding temporal entities, with own properties or (if 
> shortcuts and simplifications) the corresponding types
> 2.
> <modeling> a Activity ;
>     label “modeling activity carried out by George, as a member of 
> Takin> ;
>     carried_out_by* <george>.
> carried_out_by* with_the_quality** <time related skill>.
> [or]
> carried_out_by* with_the_motivation** <specific mission for this 
> activity>.
> [or]
> carried_out_by* in_the_contex_of_general_activity** <more general 
> activity>.
> * as PC or reified property (I do not use here the usual statement 
> construct for reified properties to keep it readable)
> ** as  property of property
> Solution 1. focuses on the quality or mission of the actor but raises 
> the question of the identity of the blank node, as stated in the 
> previous discussion on this list. A blank node has not a specific 
> identity but how are then defined the related properties ?
> This approch expresses in a suitable manner the social quality 
> inherent to the actor, whether perceived or factual, occurring mainly 
> during the activity. It is therefore nearer to reality or, at least, 
> our discourse about reality.
> Solution 2. emphasizes the importance of the actor's role in the 
> context of the action, qualifies and clarifies it. It adopts an 
> existing construct (statement reification) but calls for a clearer 
> definition in CRM and its model family of the meaning of 'properties 
> of properties' and their use. And also: in fact the quality or mission 
> does not belong to the role, but to the actor, so this kind of 
> modelling is somewhat artificial.
> Both solutions seem to work technically but reveal the difficulty of 
> expressing a complex reality and specific points of view with simple 
> constructs.
> Best wishes
> Francesco
> ---
> Dr. habil. Francesco Beretta
> Chargé de recherche au CNRS,
> Responsable du Pôle histoire numérique,
> Laboratoire de recherche historique Rhône-Alpes
> 14, Avenue Berthelot
> 69363 LYON CEDEX 07
> + 33 (0)6 51 84 48 84
> Le Pôle histoire numérique 
> <http://larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/pole-histoire-numerique> du LARHRA
> Le projet dataforhistory.org <http://dataforhistory.org/> – Ontology 
> Management Environment OntoME <http://ontome.dataforhistory.org/>
> Le projet symogih.org <http://symogih.org/>– SPARQL endpoint 
> <http://symogih.org/?q=rdf-publication>
> Publications 
> <https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/search/index/?qa[auth_t][]=Francesco+Beretta&sort=producedDate_tdate+desc>
> -------- Message transféré --------
> Sujet : 	Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Actor carrying out an action at 
> the Behest of Another
> Date : 	Wed, 22 Apr 2020 22:04:09 +0300
> De : 	Martin Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr>
> Pour : 	George Bruseker <george.bruseker at gmail.com>
> Copie à : 	crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> Dear All,
> This may find your interest:
> F. Steimann. On the representation of roles in object-oriented and 
> conceptual modelling.Data& Knowl-edge Engineering35(1): 83–106, 2000.
> This is a back ground paper of the current CRMbase approach.
> I found these, but have not yet read in detail:
> http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2205/paper25_ontocom4.pdf
> and particularly
> https://books.google.gr/books?id=n3cRDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=Ontology+of+delegation+of+action&source=bl&ots=_ozargCAze&sig=ACfU3U2aV028Cvm0Ts_64ieVHVcsmfQ51w&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS2Lbf2_zoAhVFlFwKHchzAoIQ6AEwC3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Ontology%20of%20delegation%20of%20action&f=false
>   Social Ontology: Collective Intentionality and Group Agents
> Εξώφυλλο 
> <https://books.google.gr/books?id=6ltpAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=el&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0>
> Raimo Tuomela 
> <https://www.google.gr/search?hl=el&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Raimo+Tuomela%22>
> Oxford University Press, 23 Αυγ 2013 - 320 σελίδες
> <https://books.google.gr/books?id=6ltpAgAAQBAJ&dq=Ontology+of+delegation+of+action&hl=el&sitesec=reviews> 
> 0 Κριτικές 
> <https://books.google.gr/books?id=6ltpAgAAQBAJ&dq=Ontology+of+delegation+of+action&hl=el&sitesec=reviews>
> Social ontology, in its broadest sense, is the study of the nature of 
> social reality, including collective intentions and agency. The 
> starting point of Tuomela's account of collective intentionality is 
> the distinction between thinking and acting as a private person 
> ("I-mode") versus as a "we-thinking" group member ("we-mode"). The 
> we-mode approach is based on social groups consisting of persons, 
> which may range from simple task groups consisting of a few persons to 
> corporations and even to political states. Tuomela extends the we-mode 
> notion to cover groups controlled by external authority. Thus, for 
> instance, cooperation and attitude formation are studied in cases 
> where the participants are governed "from above" as in many 
> corporations. The volume goes on to present a systematic philosophical 
> theory related to the collectivism-versus-individualism debate in the 
> social sciences. A weak version of collectivism (the "we-mode" 
> approach) depends on group-based collective intentionality. We-mode 
> collective intentionality is not individualistically reducible and is 
> needed to complement individualistic accounts in social scientific 
> theorizing. The we-mode approach is used in the book to account for 
> collective intention and action, cooperation, group attitudes, and 
> social practices and institutions, as well as group solidarity. 
> Tuomela establishes the first complete theory of group reasons (in the 
> sense of members' reasons for participation in group activities). The 
> book argues in terms of game-theoretical group-reasoning that the kind 
> of weak collectivism that the we-mode approach involves is both 
> conceptually and rational-functionally different from what an 
> individualistic approach ("pro-group I-mode" approach) entails.
> -- 
> ------------------------------------
>   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,
>   GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
>   Vox:+30(2810)391625
>   Email:martin at ics.forth.gr   
>   Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl  
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

  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,
  GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
  Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20200423/46b820bb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list