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

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Sat Jan 8 21:24:32 EET 2022


Great analysis!

I'll continue to elaborate this further.

Wish you all a good start in 2022!

Martin

On 1/7/2022 12:08 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
> 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
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------
  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/20220108/d1fe07db/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list