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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Jan 6 19:13:05 EET 2022


Dear Francesco,

Your arguments well taken, I repeat:

The speech act in CRM is identical to the sale, (Acquisition), if at all 
the speech act has a legal character, and if at all the sale is executed 
via speech act, and not via e-commerce or whatsoever.

The negotiation has no deterministic connection with the sales, hence, 
ontologically, it is independent. t is also legally different.

Therefore, the sales can be regarded as continuation of the offer. What 
if someone offers an object that is not his?, this happens.

I maintain that "outcome" is too narrow for reality.

Cheers,

Martin

On 1/6/2022 2:47 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:
>
> Dear George, Martin,
>
> Let's take an exemple: there is a negotiation that results in a sale, 
> i.e. a change of ownership of some physical object.
>
> The negotiation belongs to the physical, human space: it is an event 
> of type negotiation. It can result, or not, in a speech act changing 
> the ownership of the physical object. The new ownership starting then 
> is the outcome of the negotiation event and it belongs to the social 
> space (CRMsoc). The speech act is inbetween, it is a social event 
> (change in connotation of a physical object in the representations of 
> humans) but has as setting a physical human event. The speech act, as 
> social event, could have the type 'change of ownership'. And the 
> result is, as said, a new social situation, a new property situation 
> of the physical object.
>
> It seems therefore reasonable, as George proposes since the beginning, 
> to add to the event a 'has outcome' property (or a similar one) as a 
> shortcut linking to the type of the event that is the outcome of, or 
> results from the first, trigger' event, a speech act in the case of an 
> object's sale but it could be —in the physical, human world— a birth, 
> in the case of a 'one-night stand', or a death in the case of an 
> attempted assassination.
>
> I am therefore in favour of introducing a property of this type, which 
> we have been using for years, in a similar form, in the symogih.org 
> project because often in history we know the 'trigger' event but only 
> the type of the outcome.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Francesco
>
>
> Le 06.01.22 à 12:54, George Bruseker via Crm-sig a écrit :
>> 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.
>>
>> The cheap and cheerful solution would just be to put this as a p2 has 
>> type... the typical solution.
>>
>> It would nice to be more accurate though since the categorization 
>> isn't of the event itself but of its typical outcome. 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).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Crm-sig mailing list
>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20220106/4bfad25f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list