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

Robert Sanderson azaroth42 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 6 20:21:06 EET 2022


I agree with Francesco -- anywhere we don't have complete knowledge of the
activities there will be utility to such a shortcut, when there is an
intended outcome, but one which is not certain.

An archeological expedition -- resulted in outcome of type "came home empty
handed" / "found something"
Commission of an artwork -- resulted in outcome of type "artist ran off
with the money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what
was wanted" / ...
Exhibition planning -- resulted in outcome of type "exhibition" / "no
exhibition" / "revised exhibition" / ...
Conservation of object -- resulted in outcome of type "destroyed object by
mistake" / "no change" / "repaired damage" / ...
etc.

Rob




On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:56 PM George Bruseker <george.bruseker at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>

-- 
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/dc34b134/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list