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

George Bruseker george.bruseker at gmail.com
Tue Jan 11 19:26:35 EET 2022


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

V happy to discuss it.


>
> 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
>

I argue that the outcome is an event (this being a possible sense of
outcome).


> 2) Define a causal property (which we have avoided so far)
>

o13 triggers basically does the trick


> 3) Finish the TPs and NTPs, which I hope will be done soon
>

that would mean applying them to CRMSci I guess


>
> Maybe discussing live at the SIG is easier.
>

Probably!

Cheers,

G


>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20220111/ac40a41b/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list