[Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?
george.bruseker at gmail.com
Thu Jan 6 19:54:42 EET 2022
> 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 have a general E7 Activity which I use to capture instances which I use
as a container for many different provenance related activities. Every time
an activity (E7) that involves something like a transfer of custody
ownership offer of an object takes place, I create an instance of this
activity (the indivdual transfer etc is a part of the overall activity). So
the activity usually has a general purpose 'sale' for example... it's a
general human activity (E7) which involves some people and it involves a
purpose 'sale'. It is NOT THE SALE, but is an activity aiming towards such
a thing. We may or may not know of the next activity. Did the sale happen,
didn't it? Maybe we know, maybe we don't know. Maybe we know on the
particular level ... yes this sale XXXX on feb 9, 2021 happened. Or, only
'yes some sort of sale happened', but not which particular sale.
As said before so much of this can be covered already, but this knowledge
of 'some kind of event' was caused by this event is not presently
I don't really need help with the provenance modelling, I have that
covered. I am just looking for a way to more accurately represent an
outcome known at the categorial level (not some particular event but some
kind of event).
> 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.
This sounds good, but I'm not using that model and have the above situation
so in my case the need does arise.
> 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.
This is very advanced for me. 'Outcome' is an English language word (which
I assumed we use as our lingua franca in CRM discussions). Looking it up I
find, "the result or effect of an action, situation, or event."
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/outcome I assume in
referencing it to call up this general concept for other speakers/users of
English. I too think it is a word of language. It seems to me that the word
denotes, "the result or effect of an action, situation, or event." So, and
I don't know how to put this not in language (and furthermore English), it
denotes the concept, "The result or effect of an action, situation or
Now in the idiom of CRM, I am proposing that this be restricted to the
concept of one event resulting in another event of a type.
E7 pxxx had outcome of type E55 (of an E5/7????).
So I am looking for a CRM property that would be able to denote a similar
concept to the one that the English language term 'outcome' denotes when it
is uttered. I suppose the ontological nature of an outcome as thus denoted
is an event caused by an other event (actually an event of a type). I
believe that this concept is not restricted to English speakers but is
probably widely shared.
> 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?
I don't understand about the cheap is cheerful comment, it is a pretty
standard phrase. (FUN!)
The second part 'what would the type pertain to', is exactly my problem
though, why I don't want to use this solution. The type does not pertain to
my E7 Activity but rather to an E7 Activity that it causes but which I do
not know in the particular but only at the categorical level. Ie, if I had
more knowlege I could just put in another E7 Activity node which was of
type sale (but I don't have the knowledge of that particular and I do not
want to / cannot instantiate it)
> 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.
I am aware of basic linguistics I hope and I really don't know where the
focus on English come in here. I could write the email in French or Greek
but it is not the language we use on the list. I think the idea of outcome
is referenced in other languages.
> 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.
I hope I made a better job of it above!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig