Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think the event partitioning pattern is not so unreasonable…
<takin-activities> a Activity ;
label “all of the activities of Takin Solutions” ;
carried_out_by <takin> .
<modeling> a Activity ;
label “modeling activity carried out by George, as a member of Takin” ;
carried_out_by <george> ;
part_of <takin-activities> .
<george> a Person ;
label “George” ;
member_of <takin> .
<takin> a Group ;
label “Takin Solutions” .
I find this appealing as by acting as a representative of a group, the group also somehow engages with the activity through the partitioning and different carried_out_by references.
Otherwise, what about motivated_by? The motivation for performing the work is really the *ongoing* membership in Takin, rather than the mere existence of it, but … we know where that leads (cough cough) … so …
<modeling> a Activity ;
label “modeling activity carried out by George, as a member of Takin> ;
carried_out_by <george> ;
motivated_by <takin> .
It could be motivated by the joining of George to Takin, but that seems less accurate.
Thanks a lot for your thoughts.
I agree your proposal sounds like a viable solution to my use case. The idea is not exactly like the sub-activity for breaking down role (which DOREMUS did so well and which Linked.Art adopts as a principle) but, rather that there is a new kind of activity which is 'representing' motivated by these two new properties. So normally I just use p14 (no change so people = happy) and, just in case the activity was motivated by the fact that I am representing somebody (which indeed can be thought of as a separate activity), then I also instantiate a new event and link it as you mention to the actor through p14, to the main event through 'in the frame of' and link the representing event to the group represented by the new property 'on the behest of'. Then perhaps 'in the frame of' could be a specialisation of p17 motivated by and 'was conducted on the behest of' ... don't find a super property for that. It seems like a plausible solution, I guess people wouldn't be very happy for it to appear in CRMbase, but perhaps in CRMSoc.
I think the alternative of a .1 style property added to p14 is something to be considered as well, because it seems like ontologically it might be more coherent with people's conceptualisation of the situation. I mean to say that it seems like the .1 for in the role of property answers the kind of question which is 'in what way' or 'under what capacity' did so and so do x. Oh, she was responding AS a doctor, he was doing that AS an actor. So I find an analogy here with that kind of construction. George did X AS representative of Y; George did X as actor of kind Q.
Anyhow they both seem viable solutions, but both require additions to the model. Can anybody see an intuitive way to model this without additions?
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:41 PM Pierre Choffé <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Hi George, hi all,
What about a "Representation Activity", subclass of E7 Activity, that would be "carried out" by the Actor "representing" a Group "in the frame of" another activity ?
Let's say George has 2 activities A1 and A2. Only A2 is carried out as some sort of representation activity.
(George) "carried out" (A1) that resulted in (Something).
(George) "carried out" (A2) that resulted in (Something Else).
(George) "carried out" (Representation Activity) "in the frame of" (A2)
(Representation Activity) "was conducted on behest of" (Group)
Does this capture the semantic of George carrying out an activity as representative of Takin.Solutions ? This would be a light solution which would just require to create a specific event and two associated properties.
All the very best to you and all at CRM-SIG,
On Tue, Apr 14th, 2020 at 5:47 PM, George Bruseker <email@example.com> wrote:
Here is a minor modelling issue which may or may not find your interest in these times of quarantine. The modelling conundrum is the following:
Sometimes in an activity, the activity is carried out by a named individual but it is carried out on the behest of an organization or someone acts in their capacity as the representative of an organization.
The Conceptual Modelling (E7) is carried out by George Bruseker (E21) as representative of Takin.Solutions (E74)
The Diplomatic Reception (E7) is carried out by Ms. Diplomat (E21) as representative of the Canadian Government
Ie: we want to say that at this time (when E7 occurred) this actor (E21) did the action (p14) but also to qualify this participation not through a role but to say that this person was not acting as an individual but at the time was employed by, working for, acting on the behest of some other entity E74.
One the one hand you could say, just document that the actor was a member of some group through a join and leave event and then you could calculate that they were a member of that group at the time of the event. I think this doesn't work because a) it is obtuse and b) it cannot be inferred that because I am a member of some group at some time that the actions I take in that time span are then me acting on behalf of that group. Obviously, I guess.
So next potential solution. I think that p14.1 in the role of, won't cut it, because that would only point to a role 'diplomat' 'conceptual modeller' whatever. This does not create the relation to the instance of E39 actor which the E21 acts on behalf of/under the auspices of.
You can't just say that the E21 p107i is current or former member of E74 because a) acting on behalf of someone else doesn't necessarily imply membership in a group together and b) this will not say that the person _at that time_ was acting on behalf of / in relation to the other Actor anyway (see above).
A classic solution might be to create a one person E74 group called 'representative of x organization on this night' and then put the person in that group and then have the group carry out the action. While logically it sounds like a solution (and doesn't call for new additions to the model) but it would be counterintuitive to a user, creating entities that the user wouldn't imagine to think of or use.
Another option would be to do event partioning and then say that the person participated in a sub activity in which they were 'representing' x. I also think this creates a lot. of complication and is not self explanatory as a modelling solution (half the time you should look for actors carrying out the activity under p14 and half the time under a sub event of E7 with a special type).
So I don't find any of my imagined solutions very satisfactory. What do other people think? Does anyone have a solution that I haven't thought of with existing CRM mechanics? If there isn't a pre-existing solution, do you ideas on how to cover this scenario?
I encounter it relatively frequently.
One solution I could imagine would be a new .1 type property off the PC14 class that would be something like 'as representative of'. I am not wedded to such a solution, but I suggest it because I think it might link to a more general issue that it is difficult to express 'manner' in a grammatical sense with CRM and somehow the .1 properties aid with this important kind of construct.
Anyhow just food for thought.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know the content is safe.