Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note of event

Martin Doerr Wed, 23 May 2018 22:25:54 +0300

Dear All,

Thank you very much for the contributions. I'll try to reformulate thenext days.

On one side, it is very difficult to have general properties of outcomesof events and activities. So, on this side I do not see easy progress tobe made. We have to see case-by case. On the other side, we have theP11, which determines a level below mere presence. Many modelsdistinguish passive and active participants. This is however only a nicetheory, because in real interactions this distinction cannot easily bedetermined . Therefore we recognize active participation and generalparticipation. However the latter is only for Actors.

We may think of extending P11 to "involved or affected" things. But sucha property would anyhow be too abstract for data entry. It would only beuseful for querying. One may even argue that P11 is too poorly definedand should be deprecated. We have preferred the "present" over the"involved", because equally often it is difficult to decide who wassleeping in a meeting and who not, but in other cases this distinctionmay be helpful. We would need a clear understanding of all the wayssomething can be involved.

"so for an activity not included in the CRM list one is confined to this“Presence” story." ....I may remind that CRM is meant to be extended,and developed bottom-up, in order to avoid bright generalizations poorsemantics.

May I further remind that NO property or class of the CRM has a negativeassociation: Being "present" does not imply or suggest having beeninactive. There is the recall-over-precision principle of informationintegration.

Of course you all are invited to propose systematic interaction patternsto be modelled, which we have missed so far, but properties should bespecific enough to be decidable.

The case described below is a Modification Event. It can accurately bedescribed. So, what was the point?


All the best,

Martin

On 5/22/2018 2:25 PM, Franco Niccolucci wrote:

I meant the following.

If I shoot a person in a street, this event has me as participant via P11 and 
all the people in the street as bystanders via P12. It looks strange that the 
victim has no direct relation with the omicide except P12 “was present”, like 
all the other people in the crime scene. Since an Event is a change in 
something, one could expect that there is a direct relationship with the 
thing(s) affected. I would also expect that in most cases, loosely speaking, an 
event modifies, and not destroys, for which there would be the dedicated 
property P13.

Look at this example, concerning an E5 Event that P2 has type E55 Type 
“Vandalism of art”

The fact: “On 30/12/56, Ugo Ungaza Villegas threw a rock at the painting [Mona 
Lisa]; this resulted in the loss of a speck of pigment near the left elbow” 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_of_art).

the above E5 Event
P11 had participant E39 Ugo Ungaza Villegas
P12 occurred in the presence of “Le nozze di Cana” (painting by Veronese 
located in the same room, unaffected by the vandalic act)
P12 occurred in the presence of “Mona Lisa” (the victim)
P12 occurred in the presence of John Doe (an American Louvre visitor who was 
there by chance, not involved in the planned vandalism)
P12 occurred in the presence of a sofa (placed near the wall, for tired 
visitors; not sure there was one but could be)
P12 occurred in the presence of the stone (thrown at the painting, now in the 
Police archives as evidence n. 123456)

In conclusion, being present is often a poor property, bringing little 
information, except perhaps in the case of the Yalta Conference.

Incidentally, activities defined as subclasses of E7 (Acquisition, Move, 
transfer, etc.) allow to specify the thing they affect via an appropriate 
property; this is not the case for E7 itself, so for an activity not included 
in the CRM list one is confined to this “Presence” story.

Et al.

Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS

Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy

Il giorno 22 mag 2018, alle ore 05:32, George Bruseker <bruse...@ics.forth.gr> 
ha scritto:

Hi Rob et al.,

Just to jump in on the reason for this particular scope note reformulation work.

The reason behind the effort to articulate a new scope note lies in the 
reference to states in the previous scope note which has caused an ongoing 
debate regarding where then ‘states’ are in CIDOC CRM. Given that this debate 
recurs frequently, it seems worth the effort to kill the ‘states’ language..

When you say that E5 doesn’t have a relation to E77, what do you mean? There is 
p12 as the most general relation between an E2 kind of thing and and an E77. Or 
do you mean something else?

Cheers,

George

On May 22, 2018, at 12:52 AM, Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu> wrote:

Agreed entirely with this. The proposed scope note seems more complicated than the current one, for no additional value. The observability also brings into question the nature of the potential observer – can there be more than one observer for an event that lasts longer than a human lifetime? If there were an all-powerful, omni-present being, would that being count towards being observable (at which point, there’s no real meaning to “observable”) and if not, then what does count? Must all parts of the event be observable?The lack of the relationship between the Event and an E77 has vexed us for a long time, such as for representing the ownership period (err, event) of an object.RobFrom: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Franco Niccolucci <franco.niccolu...@gmail.com>

Date: Monday, May 21, 2018 at 6:29 PM
To: Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Cc: "crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note of event

There is a subtle difference between “observed” and “observable”: “observed" is an “accident”, “observable” is “substance”.So the lone moonlight dance is not observed for lack of observers, although it is observable. What the dancer thinks during the performance, and by the way also his intention to do so, are, instead, not observable, therefore can never observed, a fortiori.Incidentally, the Event is defined as a change of state of some E77 Persistent Item, which curiously has participants as per P11, and also voyeurs as per P12, but cannot affect (=change the state of) anything for the lack of the related property e.g. P?? affects E77.What’s the problem with the old scope note?FrancoProf. Franco Niccolucci

Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS

Piazza Ciardi 25

59100 Prato, Italy

Il giorno 21 mag 2018, alle ore 21:43, Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> ha scritto:

On 5/21/2018 9:39 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
'in-principle'  is in principle ok, but the term gives  a hint that what 
follows is not the case. At least for persons with knwlegde of the life in the 
former Soviet block.
Don't agree, may need a better term. If someone dances on the road, but nobody 
is there, because the road is closed, it is not
observable, because there is no observer. But the same kind of event, in other 
circumstances, could be observed. There is nothing in intrinsic to itself which 
prevents observation.
A better idea how to say that?
Cheers,
Martin
It is better dropped.
Best,
Christian-Emil
________________________________________
From: Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Franco Niccolucci 
<franco.niccolu...@gmail.com>
Sent: 21 May 2018 19:39
To: Martin Doerr
Cc: crm-sig
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note of event
see below
F.
Prof. Franco Niccolucci
Director, VAST-LAB
PIN - U. of Florence
Scientific Coordinator
ARIADNE - PARTHENOS
Piazza Ciardi 25
59100 Prato, Italy
Attempt of a new one:
Scope note:         This class comprises in-principle observable,
I think that the CRM concerns ONLY observables; if so, the specification is 
superfluous.
distinct and delimited processes of material nature, in cultural, social or 
physical systems, even in a human brain,
Definitely FORTH must have developed a telepathy machine :).
What happens in the human brain is observable only (indirectly) with 
electro-encephalogram and the like, so: if this is the intended meaning, it is 
just a physical process as any other, e.g. those involving human like blood 
pressure vslue, hearth beat, etc. and not worth special mentioning. If instead 
this statement refers to (suggests?) observation of thinking, this is (luckily) 
not observable.
   involving and affecting in a characteristic way instances of E77 Persistent 
Item, brought about by some coherent physical, social or technological 
phenomena. An instance of E5 Event may or may not
Only what *may* be affected, or *may not* be affected, somehow supports an 
identity criterium. What may or may not be affected looks as irrelevant, 
because we cannot understand from the consequences (or lack thereof) that some 
event took place, leading to an observed change (or lack of change), because 
the event may or may not have led to such change.
lead
to relevant permanent changes of properties and relations of items involved in 
it.
Properties and kinds of things that may be affected are characteristic for the 
type of an event.
This is somehow contradictory with the previous statement: it states that there are 
things that may be affected, and other things that may not; perhaps also a third 
grouping that “may or may not". In all, it is a bit messy.
Franco
please comment!
Best,
Martin
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
   Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
   Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                 |  Email:
mar...@ics.forth.gr
   |
                                                               |
                 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               |
                                                               |
               Web-site:
http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
             |
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
                                                              |
                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               |
                                                              |
              Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl           |
--------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

_______________________________________________

Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

_______________________________________________

Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



--
--------------------------------------------------------------
 Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
 Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                               |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
                                                             |
               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               |
                                                             |
             Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl           |
--------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note of event

Reply via email to