[Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Jan 6 19:00:29 EET 2022


Hi George,

Please explain in more detail:

On 1/6/2022 1:54 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> So the context for this is that there are provenance events being 
> described and there is categorical knowledge derivable from the source 
> material which a researcher might want to attribute to the event on 
> what generally happened, the event ended in a sale, didn't end in a 
> sale etc.
What sort of event would "end in a sale", and why this event is not a 
sale itself, or why the sale itself is not an event in its own right. 
Can you cite an instance? Since I have happened to make full analysis of 
auction house actions and internet sales offers, I would need more details.

I used a model which simply separates the sales offer from the legal 
transaction. The sale itself is not an outcome in this model, but 
motivated by the offer. Note that sales may be done without offer. 
Requests for sales are also different communications.

I did not see a need to describe "outcome" in general terms.

Further, could you better explain what you mean by "outcome" other than 
common language? Could you give a semantic definition, that would 
separate expextations from necessities, prerequisites and deterministic 
behaviour etc. ?

I seriuosly do not understand  that "outcome" has an ontological nature. 
For the time being I recognize it as a word of a language.
>
> The cheap and cheerful solution would just be to put this as a p2 has 
> type... the typical solution.
I principally disagree that cheap is cheerful. This is not a CRM 
Principle. P2 has type has never been a cheap solution. It is very 
precisly described as specialization without adding properties. I 
honestly do not understand what the type would pertain to, once it may 
not characterize the event, but an event to follow?
>
> It would nice to be more accurate though since the categorization 
> isn't of the event itself but of its typical outcome.
Exactly, if I would understand he sense of "outcome", I could follow you 
better. Note, that words and senses are different, and CRM is not 
modelling English language.
> So the case that comes up here is that provenance researchers want to 
> classify the outcomes of an event by type regardless of their 
> knowledge of the specifics of what went on in that event (because the 
> source material may simply not allow them to know).
>
Please provide instances.
> In this context, as type the outcome value will be used for 
> categorization, how many events resulted in 'sale' how many in 'not 
> sale'.
>
> In a real query scenario it would be asking questions like how many 
> events of such and such a type had what kinds of outcome. Or maybe how 
> many events with such and such a general purpose had such and such a 
> general outcome. And then filter by time, space, people etc.
>
> It would be very interesting to seek other examples of general outcome 
> recording for events in other contexts and see if this is a generally 
> useful property to define.
Still, you use the term "outcome", without explaining it, isn't it? I 
honestly do not regard it as self-evident, and I had already written 
that in previous messages.

Best,

Martin
>
> Best,
>
> George
>
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 7:28 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig 
> <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> wrote:
>
>     In continuation:
>
>     "Sold", "completed", "incomplete" are very specific things.
>     Objects are offered for sale, which does not imply anything more
>     than a sort of publication. Actual purchase is a reaction on the
>     offer.  Purchase may happen without offer. Actual change of
>     ownership is modeled in the CRM. The type of the event itself
>     implies per default completion, such as production, modification etc.
>
>     The interesting case are processes which are known to be
>     abandoned, but what that means needs further investigation: How
>     much of action has been done and left historical traces?
>
>     Processes which have not been finished during recording time are
>     another case. This is notoriously difficult, and resembles the
>     "current" discussions. We may need an "still ongoing", which
>     should be harmonized with the time-spans.
>
>     Unknown parameters of an event, such as purchase from unknown to
>     unknown, do not need a n "outcome" property, but are just a
>     specific event an object has experienced.
>
>     Isn't it?
>
>     Other kinds of "outcomes" can be modifications, obligations,
>     receiving knowledge of, transfer of properties between
>     "input-output" etc. May be it is time to study if we can create a
>     relatively comprehensive list. Some events may only leave memory
>     as only persistent thing, e.g. performances.
>
>     To be discussed!😁
>
>     Best,
>
>     Martin
>
>     On 12/31/2021 8:29 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
>>     Dear All,
>>
>>     The missing property of outcome is so far deliberate in the CRM,
>>     because we could not identify a general case. In contrast, there
>>     are models with input-output semantics, but this is a very small
>>     subset.
>>
>>     As in all such cases, we first need a collection of examples, and
>>     study if there exist common semantics, or if it splits in a set
>>     of more specific cases. I'd expect about 5 kinds of outcomes. If
>>     you give me the time, I can present in the next meeting some.
>>
>>     All the best,
>>
>>     Martin
>>
>>
>>     On 12/20/2021 6:45 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
>>>     Hi Thanasi,
>>>
>>>     The proposal creates a consistent way of doing the 'type of'
>>>     version of a property that relates one particular to another
>>>     particular.
>>>
>>>     So  each individual property:
>>>     https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1
>>>     has its typed version like:
>>>     https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P21-had-general-purpose/version-7.1.1
>>>
>>>     Right?
>>>
>>>     But I contend there IS NO particular property in regular CRM
>>>     that expresses the semantics I indicate above (therefore the
>>>     proposal cannot generate its typed version). P21 DOES NOT
>>>     express the semantics I need (hence also not P23).
>>>
>>>     O13 triggers more or less does. in particular. But I need the
>>>     generalization. Triggered an outcome of type.
>>>
>>>     Anyhow, not sure if anyone else needs this, but very common in
>>>     my data.
>>>
>>>     Cheers,
>>>     G
>>>
>>>     On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 4:35 PM Athanasios Velios
>>>     <thanasis at softicon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Following Athina's response and in relation to the question
>>>         about the
>>>         extant properties, I guess the "type of type" can be
>>>         replicated with
>>>         thesaurus related properties (e.g. P127 has broader term). I
>>>         would
>>>         consider the instances of E55 Type slightly differently to
>>>         normal
>>>         instances and not extent the idea to them.
>>>
>>>         T.
>>>
>>>         On 14/12/2021 19:42, George Bruseker wrote:
>>>         > Hi Thanasi,
>>>         >
>>>         > Yes that's true. Good reminder. That might be a solution
>>>         but then we
>>>         > would need the particular property for expressing that two
>>>         events are
>>>         > causally connected. I avoided to put it in the last email
>>>         so as not to
>>>         > stir up to many semantic teapots. But obviously to have
>>>         the general
>>>         > property we should have the particular property. So we
>>>         have for example
>>>         > we have the particular properties:
>>>         >
>>>         >
>>>         https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1
>>>
>>>         >
>>>         <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1>
>>>         > and
>>>         >
>>>         https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P21-had-general-purpose/version-7.1.1
>>>
>>>         >
>>>         <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P21-had-general-purpose/version-7.1.1>
>>>         >
>>>         > so the analogy to this in my situation is probably
>>>         >
>>>         > O13 triggers (is triggered by)
>>>         >
>>>         https://cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/sites/default/files/CRMsci%20v.1.4.pdf
>>>
>>>         >
>>>         <https://cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/sites/default/files/CRMsci%20v.1.4.pdf>
>>>         > and we need the analogy of p21 to make the model complete....
>>>         >
>>>         > On another note out of curiosity, in the extension where
>>>         every property
>>>         > has a 'type of' property what happens with the extant
>>>         'type of'
>>>         > properties? I assume there isn't any has general purpose
>>>         of type
>>>         > property... or is there?
>>>         >
>>>         > Cheers
>>>         >
>>>         > G
>>>         >
>>>         > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 9:20 PM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
>>>         > <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
>>>         >
>>>         >     Hi George, all,
>>>         >
>>>         >     As part of Linked Conservation Data (and with the help
>>>         of Carlo, Martin
>>>         >     and Steve) we proposed the idea of Typed Properties
>>>         which derive from
>>>         >     current CRM properties and always have E55 Type as range.
>>>         >
>>>         >     E.g. "bears feature" → "bears feature of type" so that
>>>         one can describe
>>>         >     the type of something without specifying the
>>>         individual. It is very
>>>         >     economical in conservation where we want to avoid
>>>         describing
>>>         >     hundreds of
>>>         >     individuals of similar types.
>>>         >
>>>         >     We are still baking the exact impact of such a
>>>         reduction from
>>>         >     individuals to Types. One issue in RDFS is the
>>>         multitude of new
>>>         >     properties. There seems to be a simple implementation
>>>         in OWL with
>>>         >     property paths. Not an immediate solution but a flag
>>>         for more to come.
>>>         >
>>>         >     All the best,
>>>         >
>>>         >     Thanasis
>>>         >
>>>         >     On 14/12/2021 15:49, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
>>>         >      > Hi all,
>>>         >      >
>>>         >      > I have situations in which I have events where the
>>>         data curators
>>>         >      > describe events for which they have generic
>>>         knowledge of the
>>>         >     outcome:
>>>         >      > sold, completed, incomplete, this sort of thing. So
>>>         there is
>>>         >     knowledge
>>>         >      > but it is not knowledge of the particular next
>>>         event but of a
>>>         >     general
>>>         >      > kind of outcome.
>>>         >      >
>>>         >      > We have properties like: P21 had general purpose
>>>         (was purpose of)
>>>         >     which
>>>         >      > is very useful for when the data curator only has
>>>         generic knowledge
>>>         >      > knowledge and not particular knowledge regarding
>>>         purpose. This
>>>         >     seems a
>>>         >      > parallel to this case.
>>>         >      >
>>>         >      > Anybody else have this case and have an interest in
>>>         a property
>>>         >     like 'had
>>>         >      > general outcome' or 'had outcome of type' that goes
>>>         from Event to a
>>>         >      > Type? Or, better yet if possible, a solution that
>>>         doesn't involve
>>>         >     a new
>>>         >      > property but that does meet this semantic need
>>>         without too many
>>>         >     contortions?
>>>         >      >
>>>         >      > Best,
>>>         >      >
>>>         >      > George
>>>         >      >
>>>         >      > _______________________________________________
>>>         >      > Crm-sig mailing list
>>>         >      > Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>>         >      > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>         >     <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
>>>         >      >
>>>         >  _______________________________________________
>>>         >     Crm-sig mailing list
>>>         > Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>>>         > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>>>         >     <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
>>>         >
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     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
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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/20220106/26fc097f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list