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

Athanasios Velios thanasis at softicon.co.uk
Tue Jan 11 18:31:38 EET 2022


Forgive me George for bringing up my original comment - it is entirely 
possible that I have not understood the problem.

It seems to me that what is really missing is the connection between the 
event and the outcome. It seems that you are saying that it is a causal 
connection. Shortcutting that to the type of the outcome is exactly the 
process of Typed Properties (TPs) and negating that is the process of 
Negative Typed Properties (NTPs), both of which are still being baked. 
Adding TPs to CRM base is a bad idea in my view, as it is a specific 
solution for RDFS and it is not needed in other implementations.

So maybe break down the problem to:

1) See if we need a new class for outcome
2) Define a causal property (which we have avoided so far)
3) Finish the TPs and NTPs, which I hope will be done soon

Maybe discussing live at the SIG is easier.

All the best,

Thanasis

On 07/01/2022 10:08, George Bruseker via Crm-sig 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list