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

George Bruseker george.bruseker at gmail.com
Fri Jan 7 12:08:30 EET 2022


Hi Rob / Francesco / Martin,

These are all nice examples that maybe we could dig into further, maybe
they display the 'senses of outcome' problem Martin is pointing to?

An ontological problem that seems to come up in my mind as I try to
conceptualize this is do we mean

1) outcome of type in the sense of a shortcut for a real particular event
of a type (the particular event we do not know much about expect that it
was caused by the first event and has some type)

2) outcome of a type in the sense of a shortcut for a real particular event
that had particular properties (the particular event we do not know
much about expect that it produced something, showed something, modified
something and was caused by the first event)

3) outcome as an evaluation of achievement of an event (succeeds, fails) -
we only talk about one event and evaluate whether it achieves its goal

These can all cause trouble.

So for example the JFK Assassination:

(E7) Shooting at JFK, (E69) JFK dies

So if we choose to model these as two separate events (legitimate), then
Shooting of JFK had general purpose 'death' and we know in fact that the
shooting triggers the death of JFK (no bullets in JFK, no dead JFK that
day, the shooting caused the death).

So the shortcut 'had outcome of type' could be 'death' just in case we
didn't know anything about the particular death event of JFK and didn't
want to instantiate it as a node.

Shooting of JFK (E7) triggers Death of JFK (E69) has type "Death" (E55)

So here it is that there is an event of type X that is shortcut.

That would be sense 1.

Sense 2 would be something like

Shooting at JFK (E7) triggers Death of JFK (E69) kills JFK (E21)

So here it would be the particular property of E69 to 'kill' an E21 that
would be shortcuted

We could also have sense 3, 'had outcome of type' 'success'. As in, the
assassin had general purpose 'death' and the outcome was 'success'.

How would this work in the other examples:
>


> An archeological expedition -- resulted in outcome of type "came home
> empty handed" / "found something"
>

So we have an initial event

Archeological Expedition (E7) has general purpose "Find Something" (E55)
Archeological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type "Found Something" (E55)

And then would the shortcut mean:

a) Archeological Expedition (E7) triggered Dig Activity (A1) has type Found
Something (E55)

or

b) Archeological Expedition (E7) triggered Dig Activity (A1)
encountered Object (E22)

(so here because E22 is 'something', the shortcut is true... that would
seem more like a rule than a property)

or

c) Archeological Expedition (E7) had purpose Find Something (E55)
Archeological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type Found Something (E55)

So here it wouldn't imply a pass through to another event but would
evaluate this event in itself.


Commission of an artwork -- resulted in outcome of type "artist ran off
> with the money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what
> was wanted" / ...
>

Commission of Artwork (E7) had general purpose 'production of artwork'
Commission of Artwork (E7) had outcome of type "artist ran off with the
money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what was
wanted"

And then would these shortcuts mean:

a) Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Production (E12) has type "artist
produced something else" / "artist produced what was wanted" (E55)

or

Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Activity (E7) has type "artist ran off
with the money" (E55)

So in the above cases it either shortcuts an E12 or an E7 which we don't
have any details about but for which we would have classificatory terms
like 'desired production', 'undesired production' OR 'theft/loss' or
something like this. As per Martin's mail on types it falls to the
vocabulary to tell us which CRM event type is implied...

or

b) Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Production (E12) produced Some
Object (E22)

(so here because E22 is 'something', the shortcut is true... that would
seem more like a rule than a property)

But if we do this then we would have to put the 'desired production' or
'undesired production' categories on the E22 and the non production / non
created thing would not be expressible.

or

c) Commission of Artwork (E7) had purpose "Build Something" (E55)
Archaological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type "Built that Something"
(E55)

This above case however seems like it would be better covered by the Plans
modelling since what makes something meet or not meet a criterion is
complicated...?


> Exhibition planning -- resulted in outcome of type "exhibition" / "no
> exhibition" / "revised exhibition" / ...
>


Exhibition Planning (E7) has general purpose "Run Exhibition" (E55)
Exhibition Planning (E7) had outcome of type "exhibition" / "no exhibition"
/ "revised exhibition" (E55)

And then would the shortcut mean:

a) Exhibition Planning (E7) triggered Exhibition (E7) has type "Exhibition"
/ "Revised Exhibition" (E55)

it seems here we have a problem with 'no exhibition' because we refer to a
non existent

 We cannot say

Exhibition Planning (E7) triggered Exhibition (E7) has type "No Exhibition"
(E55)


b) Exhibition Planning (E7) triggered Exhibition (E7) exhibited Object
(E22)

(so here because E22 is 'something', the shortcut for the positive
exhibiting is true... that would seem more like a rule than a property)

or

c) Exhibition Planning (E7) had purpose "Exhibition" (E55)
Exhibition Planning (E7) had outcome of type "Exhibition" (E55)

If here we relate the outcome back to the domain activity, but we in
reality separate the exhibition planning from the exhibition the statement
is non sensical because exhibition planning is not the exhibition.


> Conservation of object -- resulted in outcome of type "destroyed object by
> mistake" / "no change" / "repaired damage" / ...
>

I won't tackle this one because I'm probably getting repetitive and I think
the activity planning modelling is likely a more robust solution for this.

So I agree that there are multiple senses that we would have to navigate.
To my original thinking in putting this forward for discussion, the most
sensible interpretation, if this is a good property at all, would be
something like sense 1 where we meant that the shortcut shortcuts an event
which we don't know much about except for its type and that it is caused by
the first event.

This would leave us with at least the problem of events that don't occur.
Like 'no sale'. I think, however, maybe the example of the commissioning
gives an idea of a way out of this. If the original intention of the
commission is to trigger an E12 that is satisfactory, if the thing doesn't
get made, but we classify the outcome as 'theft/artist ran away', it is not
that the commission did not result in any other event, it just didn't
result in an E12 of any sort. It resulted in an E7 of type theft. In the
'no sale', although we may not be privy to it, there may have been some
furtive activities (E7) that tried to hawk the item. This anonymous E7 is a
real event (attempting to hawk the item) and is legitimately classifiable
as a 'no sale'.

But maybe there are good arguments for sense 2 or 3 or yet another solution
I haven't drawn out.

Best,

George
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20220107/c09f6d96/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list