[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,

Martin

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
>
> LARHRA UMR CNRS 5190,
> MSH LSE,
> 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
  
  Vox:+30(2810)391625
  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