Dear Øyvind,
Thank you for comment. Actually I would have never assumed anything else
than what you describe below😁.
What I wanted to make clear with my previous message is exactly this
difference between integrating documentation based on unambiguous ground
facts as they /are expected to appear/ widely in documentation, versus
our common understanding of the relevant reality beyond these facts. It
appears to me that the aspects you describe are well-placed in
narratives giving adequate credit the subject.
The CRM is not even suited to describe such details for human actions,
nor is it intended to provide an adequate account of the details of
reality. Firstly, the reduction of aspects of reality to FOL predicates
is a horrendous restriction. It doesn't even work for the weather
forecast or anything approximately described by differential equations.
Even if it were possible, we would need a huge ontology, and I
personally would regard it as a cultural nightmare. All statements I
have made in my previous message have nothing to do with a simplified
world-view of my own.
Let me repeat the methodological argument in my previous message:
Methodological Question *2 *(recall-precision argument)*: *
If we document the instance not
with "Oxx3 done by", but only with "P12 occurred in the presence of",
and a suitable text, which is
anyway required, what research
questions would be compromised by too many unrelated answers? What is
the expected
precision/recall ratio for a
query : Get instances of "Sxx1 Biological Genesis" where P12
<about:blank?compose#_toc9081> occurred in the presence of: refers to an
instance
of 'E20 Biological' that is
not also referred by O17 generated? (e.g. the dinosaurs preserved on
their own eggs and birds with their own
nest)
and : "Note that the CRM aims primarily at inter-institutional
integration. This is explicit in the Introduction."
Similarly, I implied, that we should discuss:
Methodological Question *2 : *If we document race horse bios with CRM
propositions only in the framework of the human-initiated actions,
rather than all the
descriptions of the
horse's own initiatives, (and describe such initiatives at a *type
level* for example, a subject index to a
narrative for
example), what research questions would be compromised by too many
unrelated answers? What records would
we miss, if we get
the full records back, based on queries that refer only to the
human-initiated actions?
Of course, "used specific object" for a race horse in a
race is utterly ugly, but not wrong, and a ground fact.
Please compare the integrating power of the URIs of /horse-own actions
/in formal propositions to the integrating power of the /framing human
activity/ within which the horse acted. These are the critical
questions. The reality, as you describe, is hopefully well-known to all
of us😁 (I have enough smart animals in my garden, and a smart
grand-daughter in the age of 18 months).
Please note, that *exactly *these kinds of arguments have been done
regularly in the development of the CRM, in order to keep it at a
comprehensible size and as objective function-based criteria. For
instance, we accepted CRMarcheo only after identifying real scenarios of
its integrating power across and beyond individual excavation records.
If members agree, I propose to make an issue to document the evolution
of this issue as didactic material for the CRM methodology. We never
gave a reasonable written account of this kind for previous decisions,
rather registered the following consensus only.
Please note, that I do not answer here these questions, a simply state
that CRM-SIG must provide answers to them, or change the method.
Comments?
All the best,
Martin
On 11/4/2021 4:23 PM, Øyvind Eide wrote:
Dear Martin,
thank you very much for this extensive overview of the modelling
questions and challenges. I want for now to pick up on one small
comment only.
Am 03.11.2021 um 18:32 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
<crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>:
Dear Robert, all,
[...]
*
*This chain of argumentation should, to my opinion, be continued for
the other use cases, such as:
* Tracking animals (normally done by Darwin Core
records we model as Encounter Events. I have asked a colleague for
representative examples
from LifeWatch Europe)
* Race horse bios (note that race horse actions
are normally under complete control of human activity)
I have discussed this quite a bit with horse trainers connected to
some work on agency some years ago, and also, the case of reindeer
herding dogs.
I have not studies race horses so you might be right that they are
under strong (if not complete) human control. However, I would be
happy to show video evidence and professional views at a meeting
(based on practitioners, not on researchers, I must add) indicating
that the claim for rider control at the micro level in other and more
complex horse operations is not plausible given the speed of movement
in some types of action such as combat situations. Human-to-animal
communication is just too slow explain the movements horses do when,
for instance, galloping sideways or backwards in time critical
operations. In my understanding, a level of double agency in
negotiation, or some sort of symbiotic cooperation, explains the
evidence better. I think we need to include horse decision making in
such cases.
As for dogs herding, autonomous decision making by the dog based on
general guidelines, extensive training, and frequent cooperation with
the human(s) also seems plausible.
All the best,
Øyvind
--
------------------------------------
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
