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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Fri Jan 7 21:33:32 EET 2022


Dear Francesco,

Please let us not confuse everything. The CRM is in no ways grounded in 
physics. It is grounded in the scholarly views of museum curators and a 
set of other disciplines dealing with historical facts of the past in 
careful collaborations over 25 years. Please study the history of the 
CRM, beginning from the Smithsonian in Washington. The CRM is compatible 
with GIS systems, physics, biology and othersciences, but does not 
describe their theories, but exclusively particular facts of the past. 
It includes social constructs already, and no no ways excludes social 
disciplines.

The only real bias of the CRM is purely technological and inevitable: 
Information integration via machines based on binary logic, as a means 
to link context-free identifiable individuals from human provided data, 
which form a small but important subset of historical data, which the a 
collaborative empirical result of the work of the CRM-SIG. This 
determines the modelling principles of the CRM.

If you introduce other functions or principles of modeling, we have 
first to understand their new epistemic function in the scientific 
discourse, and understand if and how binary logic based machines etc, 
may be able to process them epistemically correctly for the intended 
purpose. If you introduce other functions or principles of modeling, the 
model will necessarily be different from the CRM itself and possibly 
incompatible.

This *cannot* be discussed vi a e-mail exchange, it is too complex. Any 
such attempt would increase the already existing confusion of epistemic 
and  technological insights and necessities. We have to organize vitual 
face-to-face meetings for that purpose.

My previous messages where *solely* about the word "outcome" and its 
polysemy. I perfectly understand the word. I only tried to make the CRM 
audience aware of the ontological methodologic questions necessary to 
reveal the polysemy of this word and enable choosing the senses that can 
be modelled adequately. I also tried, without success, to make you aware 
of the extreme context dependency of any such word. If this has been 
misunderstood, we need to discuss this *face-to-face *with enough time. 
The necessary explanations and disambiguations definitely exceed my 
writing capacities.

Looking forward to a substantial face-to-face discussion and resolution 
of any misunderstanding,

Best wishes,

Martin

On 1/6/2022 9:03 PM, Francesco Beretta wrote:
>
> Dear Martin, and (indirectly) Rob and George,
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> Le 06.01.22 à 18:13, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :
>> Dear Francesco,
>>
>> Your arguments well taken, I repeat:
>>
>> The speech act in CRM is identical to the sale, (Acquisition), if at 
>> all the speech act has a legal character, and if at all the sale is 
>> executed via speech act, and not via e-commerce or whatsoever.
>
> The point is: why care at all about building CRMsoc if everything is 
> already present in CRMbase? And, furthermore, are we sure that we have 
> a well grounded foundational analysis of social facts in CRMbase? 
> Especially as we know that it's grounded in the epistemic view of 
> classical physic (I mean not quantic)?  Isn't this a somehow different 
> domain of discourse from social life as such? And shouldn't we take 
> car not to model a domain without taking into account the paradigms of 
> the disciplines studying the domain under consideration, i.e. social 
> life?
>
>
>>> Le 06.01.22 à 12:54, George Bruseker via Crm-sig a écrit :
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The cheap and cheerful solution would just be to put this as a p2 
>>>> has type... the typical solution.
>>>>
>>>> It would nice to be more accurate though since the categorization 
>>>> isn't of the event itself but of its typical outcome. 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).
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
>>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20220107/8d1a942b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list