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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Jan 6 20:42:09 EET 2022


Sorry,

I mean (Oxford Dictionary):

"outcome
noun [ C usually singular ] 
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/help/codes.html>
uk
/ˈaʊt.kʌm/ us
/ˈaʊt.kʌm/
C1
a result 
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/result> or 
effect <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/effect> 
of an action 
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/action>, 
situation 
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/situation>, etc.:
It's too early to predict 
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/predict> the 
outcome of the meeting 
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/meeting>.
Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples

the result of something 
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/articles/the-result-of-something>

  * result <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/result>His
    firing was a direct result of his refusal to follow the employment
    policies.
  * effect <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/effect>The
    radiation leak has had a disastrous effect on the environment.
  * consequence
    <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/consequence>Failure
    to do proper safety checks may have serious consequences.
  * outcome <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/outcome>It's
    too early to predict the outcome of the meeting.
  * upshot <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/upshot>The
    upshot of the discussions is that there will be no further redundancies.
  * end result
    <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/end-result>The end
    result of these changes should be a more efficient system for
    dealing with complaints.

What do you mean of all that? The fact that equivalent words exist in 
some other languages has nothing to do with definition.

I hope this is comprehensible.

Best,

Martin


On 1/6/2022 8:21 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> 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 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
>>
>
>
>             -- 
>             ------------------------------------
>               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


-- 
------------------------------------
  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/20220106/87f7fdc0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list