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

George Bruseker george.bruseker at gmail.com
Thu Jan 6 19:56:40 EET 2022


Hi Rob / Martin,

Yes, Rob provides a nice instance example.

Again, I just want to explore whether such a property has applications
beyond this scope. Perhaps it isn't needed but if we look at more examples
maybe a generalization will arise.

Best,

George

On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 7:53 PM Robert Sanderson <azaroth42 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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/20220106/5c337a4a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list