Dear Robert,
Indeed, I take elaborating more the relationships between events and
activities as one of the most interesting things to do.
A problem I have considered in the past is the following: Typically,
creation or production is anticipated as a linear compression of
processes along the object under consideration. There may be "crossing"
evolutions of things sharing common events, and then being attributed to
more than one whole.
But, for the time being, staying at semantics and forms of delegation
and respective super activities would be nice to analyze. Another,
similar and notorious question of controversy are the events in machines
initiated and intended by human activity. We normally attribute them to
the human actor, as the one being also legally responsible.
Rather than seeking just a linguistically nice solution, such as
"representing", I would like to make a thorough ontological analysis of
the cases of delegation and associated responsibilities and there social
differentiation.
So, yes, sounds interesting to go deeper.
Best,
martin
On 4/18/2020 12:24 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Oh, I am definitely dubious of the potential about using AI over
cultural heritage data for even inferencing based on axioms like this.
I am entirely unsurprised that the effort required was unrealistically
high. This is why, in the discussion in the Linked Art space, we put
it aside as being a theoretical problem, but not one that would cause
any real errors.
I think you expressed it perfectly – it is reasonable to assume that
properties hold from the whole to the part unless it is otherwise
stated. If the whole has a timespan, then the part can be assumed to
have that timespan as well (even if an edge case allows it to not in
fact have that timespan). With cultural heritage everything is
uncertain to a large degree, compared to physical sciences and
especially to mathematics, and expecting all assertions to be verified
as true is simply impossible.
That said … if there was a sub-property of P9 that was used for
activities, we could be more explicit in the scope notes about some of
these implications about the actors, rather than just the time and
space. If there’s interest in pursuing this, I’m happy to participate
and channel use cases. If there isn’t, I’m just as happy to leave the
sleeping dog alone 😊
Rob
*From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin
Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr>
*Date: *Friday, April 17, 2020 at 10:15 AM
*To: *"crm-sig@ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] Activity Partitioning (was Actors acting for
other Actors)
Dear Robert,
Very good remarks! but...
I may say that this discussion runs headlong against the wall of
providing enough information from the real world in order to feed
artificial intelligence - you seem yourself to be critical about it.
I can make a qualified statement about that, because I assigned a
whole Master thesis about reasoning from parts to wholes in
activities, and teams and instrumentation used in activities to a
student. In the framework of the European Project 3D-COFORM, about
digitization and creation of 3D models, we could show that even when
you intend to monitor completely manually what is going on in a
technical process, the effort becomes unrealistically high. If you are
interested, I can make the whole thesis available.
Therefore we need inferences that provide reasonable likelihoods: " if
there is the activity of writing a book which was carried out by a
Person, I don’t think it is legitimate to conclude that the part of
writing a chapter was also carried out by that same person." Correct,
but it is most reasonable to assume in absence of other evidence.
Indeed, historical information almost exclusively of such kind of
reasoning, and a large part of empirical natural science as well.
Extending inferences in binary logic with inferences of likelihood is
in my eyes the challenge of the future, and not attempting to model
the world until binary logic can deal with it completely. Likelihoods
of such inferences can, in enough cases, be approximated by actual
distributions. For instance, in a certain context, you may be able to
estimate how many writers let chapters write by other people. This is
a research agenda I share with other computer scientists.
Please also note, that E4 Period continues to be IsA STV.
Please also note, that the formalization of the CRM does NOT take
inverse properties to support different inferences from forward ones,
and always imply each other. Hence, using P9i does not make any
difference in CRM logic.
All the best,
Martin
On 4/17/2020 6:53 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Dear all,
This discussion (and the partitioning aspect of it) reminds me of
a niggling concern that came up in the Linked Art work about scope
note of P9 when applied to activities.
In particular, P9 only talks about the part being a subset of the
phenomena of the whole:
This property associates an instance of E4 Period with another
instance of E4 Period that is defined by a subset of the phenomena
that define the former.
To what extent can we infer knowledge through the P9 link, if any?
For example, if there is the activity of writing a book which was
carried out by a Person, I don’t think it is legitimate to
conclude that the part of writing a chapter was also carried out
by that same person.
If X consists_of Y, and X carried_out_by Z, then it is not
necessarily the case that Y carried_out_by Z, due to the open
world assumption. It could be that X was also carried out by A, B
and C, but that was just not stated. Therefore Y could have been
carried out by anyone. And the same argument for all other
relationships and properties.
Do we even know that the part is within the same temporal period
as the whole? I don’t think so, given that P4 allows alternative
opinions about it expressed by assigning multiple Time-Spans to
the same E2 Temporal Entity, rather than creating a new E2 and
having a 1:1 relationship with TimeSpan. So the part could occur
temporally within an undocumented alternative opinion about the
timespan. We would thus instead need to also assert P117 occurs
during … which is not a sub-property of P9 or vice versa.
P9 is a sub property of P10, which has a domain and range of
Spacetime Volume… so this will need to change with the change of
STVs no longer being a parent class of Period? At which point we
could ensure that P9 implies both P117 and some spatial equivalent?
Conversely, it seems that P9i forms part of IS a strong assertion.
If we assert that the part was carried out by A, then the whole
MUST have been carried out by at least A, because the carrying-out
of the part is a subset of the carrying-out of the whole. Thus,
we should prefer to use P9i, as it enables stronger inferences and
understanding. But … then if we assert that an Activity is part
of a Period (rather than merely occurs during it), then the
carrying-out-ness is a part of the phenomena of the Period … which
cannot be carried out as it’s not an activity.
Result: :head-exploding-emoji:
For now we have chosen to ignore these issues in linked art for
the sake of sanity and convenience. However if there is guidance
or improvements that can be made, we would be happy to contribute
to those discussions! 😊
Rob
The original issue:
https://github.com/linked-art/linked.art/issues/316
<https://github.com/linked-art/linked.art/issues/316>
--
*Dr. Robert Sanderson*, **Semantic Architect | Getty Digital |
getty.edu <http://getty.edu/>
signature_1056976797
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
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:mar...@ics.forth.gr <mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr>
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
*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.*
--
------------------------------------
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: mar...@ics.forth.gr
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
