Hi George,
Please explain in more detail:
On 1/6/2022 1:54 PM, George Bruseker wrote:
Hi Martin,
So the context for this is that there are provenance events being
described and there is categorical knowledge derivable from the source
material which a researcher might want to attribute to the event on
what generally happened, the event ended in a sale, didn't end in a
sale etc.
What sort of event would "end in a sale", and why this event is not a
sale itself, or why the sale itself is not an event in its own right.
Can you cite an instance? Since I have happened to make full analysis of
auction house actions and internet sales offers, I would need more details.
I used a model which simply separates the sales offer from the legal
transaction. The sale itself is not an outcome in this model, but
motivated by the offer. Note that sales may be done without offer.
Requests for sales are also different communications.
I did not see a need to describe "outcome" in general terms.
Further, could you better explain what you mean by "outcome" other than
common language? Could you give a semantic definition, that would
separate expextations from necessities, prerequisites and deterministic
behaviour etc. ?
I seriuosly do not understand that "outcome" has an ontological nature.
For the time being I recognize it as a word of a language.
The cheap and cheerful solution would just be to put this as a p2 has
type... the typical solution.
I principally disagree that cheap is cheerful. This is not a CRM
Principle. P2 has type has never been a cheap solution. It is very
precisly described as specialization without adding properties. I
honestly do not understand what the type would pertain to, once it may
not characterize the event, but an event to follow?
It would nice to be more accurate though since the categorization
isn't of the event itself but of its typical outcome.
Exactly, if I would understand he sense of "outcome", I could follow you
better. Note, that words and senses are different, and CRM is not
modelling English language.
So the case that comes up here is that provenance researchers want to
classify the outcomes of an event by type regardless of their
knowledge of the specifics of what went on in that event (because the
source material may simply not allow them to know).
Please provide instances.
In this context, as type the outcome value will be used for
categorization, how many events resulted in 'sale' how many in 'not
sale'.
In a real query scenario it would be asking questions like how many
events of such and such a type had what kinds of outcome. Or maybe how
many events with such and such a general purpose had such and such a
general outcome. And then filter by time, space, people etc.
It would be very interesting to seek other examples of general outcome
recording for events in other contexts and see if this is a generally
useful property to define.
Still, you use the term "outcome", without explaining it, isn't it? I
honestly do not regard it as self-evident, and I had already written
that in previous messages.
Best,
Martin
Best,
George
On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 7:28 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
<crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
In continuation:
"Sold", "completed", "incomplete" are very specific things.
Objects are offered for sale, which does not imply anything more
than a sort of publication. Actual purchase is a reaction on the
offer. Purchase may happen without offer. Actual change of
ownership is modeled in the CRM. The type of the event itself
implies per default completion, such as production, modification etc.
The interesting case are processes which are known to be
abandoned, but what that means needs further investigation: How
much of action has been done and left historical traces?
Processes which have not been finished during recording time are
another case. This is notoriously difficult, and resembles the
"current" discussions. We may need an "still ongoing", which
should be harmonized with the time-spans.
Unknown parameters of an event, such as purchase from unknown to
unknown, do not need a n "outcome" property, but are just a
specific event an object has experienced.
Isn't it?
Other kinds of "outcomes" can be modifications, obligations,
receiving knowledge of, transfer of properties between
"input-output" etc. May be it is time to study if we can create a
relatively comprehensive list. Some events may only leave memory
as only persistent thing, e.g. performances.
To be discussed!😁
Best,
Martin
On 12/31/2021 8:29 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear All,
The missing property of outcome is so far deliberate in the CRM,
because we could not identify a general case. In contrast, there
are models with input-output semantics, but this is a very small
subset.
As in all such cases, we first need a collection of examples, and
study if there exist common semantics, or if it splits in a set
of more specific cases. I'd expect about 5 kinds of outcomes. If
you give me the time, I can present in the next meeting some.
All the best,
Martin
On 12/20/2021 6:45 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
Hi Thanasi,
The proposal creates a consistent way of doing the 'type of'
version of a property that relates one particular to another
particular.
So each individual property:
https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1
has its typed version like:
https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P21-had-general-purpose/version-7.1.1
Right?
But I contend there IS NO particular property in regular CRM
that expresses the semantics I indicate above (therefore the
proposal cannot generate its typed version). P21 DOES NOT
express the semantics I need (hence also not P23).
O13 triggers more or less does. in particular. But I need the
generalization. Triggered an outcome of type.
Anyhow, not sure if anyone else needs this, but very common in
my data.
Cheers,
G
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 4:35 PM Athanasios Velios
<thana...@softicon.co.uk> wrote:
Following Athina's response and in relation to the question
about the
extant properties, I guess the "type of type" can be
replicated with
thesaurus related properties (e.g. P127 has broader term). I
would
consider the instances of E55 Type slightly differently to
normal
instances and not extent the idea to them.
T.
On 14/12/2021 19:42, George Bruseker wrote:
> Hi Thanasi,
>
> Yes that's true. Good reminder. That might be a solution
but then we
> would need the particular property for expressing that two
events are
> causally connected. I avoided to put it in the last email
so as not to
> stir up to many semantic teapots. But obviously to have
the general
> property we should have the particular property. So we
have for example
> we have the particular properties:
>
>
https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1
>
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1>
> and
>
https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P21-had-general-purpose/version-7.1.1
>
<https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P21-had-general-purpose/version-7.1.1>
>
> so the analogy to this in my situation is probably
>
> O13 triggers (is triggered by)
>
https://cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/sites/default/files/CRMsci%20v.1.4.pdf
>
<https://cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/sites/default/files/CRMsci%20v.1.4.pdf>
> and we need the analogy of p21 to make the model complete....
>
> On another note out of curiosity, in the extension where
every property
> has a 'type of' property what happens with the extant
'type of'
> properties? I assume there isn't any has general purpose
of type
> property... or is there?
>
> Cheers
>
> G
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 9:20 PM Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig
> <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
>
> Hi George, all,
>
> As part of Linked Conservation Data (and with the help
of Carlo, Martin
> and Steve) we proposed the idea of Typed Properties
which derive from
> current CRM properties and always have E55 Type as range.
>
> E.g. "bears feature" → "bears feature of type" so that
one can describe
> the type of something without specifying the
individual. It is very
> economical in conservation where we want to avoid
describing
> hundreds of
> individuals of similar types.
>
> We are still baking the exact impact of such a
reduction from
> individuals to Types. One issue in RDFS is the
multitude of new
> properties. There seems to be a simple implementation
in OWL with
> property paths. Not an immediate solution but a flag
for more to come.
>
> All the best,
>
> Thanasis
>
> On 14/12/2021 15:49, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have situations in which I have events where the
data curators
> > describe events for which they have generic
knowledge of the
> outcome:
> > sold, completed, incomplete, this sort of thing. So
there is
> knowledge
> > but it is not knowledge of the particular next
event but of a
> general
> > kind of outcome.
> >
> > We have properties like: P21 had general purpose
(was purpose of)
> which
> > is very useful for when the data curator only has
generic knowledge
> > knowledge and not particular knowledge regarding
purpose. This
> seems a
> > parallel to this case.
> >
> > Anybody else have this case and have an interest in
a property
> like 'had
> > general outcome' or 'had outcome of type' that goes
from Event to a
> > Type? Or, better yet if possible, a solution that
doesn't involve
> a new
> > property but that does meet this semantic need
without too many
> contortions?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > George
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Crm-sig mailing list
> > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
> > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> <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
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
--
------------------------------------
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
--
------------------------------------
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
