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

Robert Sanderson azaroth42 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 6 19:53:23 EET 2022


Let me try and explain my understanding

There are events, such as the auction of a specific lot, in which the
objects in the lot are offered for sale.

That event might result in the transfer of ownership of the objects in the
lot from their current owner to the new owner, but they might not -- there
might be no bidders, the reserve price might not be met, etc. At which
point there is no transfer of ownership at all, and hence we should not
create an E8 Acquisition because there was no change in ownership.

So ... we have established that the auction of the lot is not the same
entity as the E8 acquisition, which might be triggered by the auction of
lot. Let's just call it an E7 Activity.

Now, lets assume that we do not know anything at all about that
Acquisition. So, much like the other *_of_type properties, we don't want to
instantiate an E8 which was triggered by the E7 but with no properties, but
instead to just say that the E7 resulted in an activity of_type Sale, or
of_type Return, or of_type Unknown, or of_type Bought In.

Thus:

<auction_of_lot1> a E7_Activity ;
  carried_out_by <auction house> ;
  triggered_activity_of_type <bought-in> .

<bought-in> a E55_Type .

Something like that?

Rob


On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:28 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <
crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> wrote:

> 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 listCrm-sig at ics.forth.grhttp://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 listCrm-sig at ics.forth.grhttp://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
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20220106/84d84c4e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list