Hi Martin, Quoting self, "in the idiom of CRM, I am proposing that this be restricted to the concept of one event resulting in another event of a type.
E7 pxxx had outcome of type E55 (of an E5/7????). So I am looking for a CRM property that would be able to denote a similar concept to the one that the English language term 'outcome' denotes when it is uttered."" Best, George On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:42 PM Martin Doerr <mar...@ics.forth.gr> wrote: > Sorry, > > I mean (Oxford Dictionary): > > "outcome > noun [ C usually singular ] > <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/help/codes.html> > uk > /ˈaʊt.kʌm/ us > /ˈaʊt.kʌm/ > C1 > a result <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/result> > or effect <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/effect> > of an action > <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/action>, > situation > <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/situation>, > etc.: > It's too early to predict > <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/predict> the > outcome of the meeting > <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/meeting>. > Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples > the result of something > <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/articles/the-result-of-something> > > - result <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/result>His > firing was a direct result of his refusal to follow the employment > policies. > - effect <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/effect>The > radiation leak has had a disastrous effect on the environment. > - consequence > <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/consequence>Failure to > do proper safety checks may have serious consequences. > - outcome <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/outcome>It's > too early to predict the outcome of the meeting. > - upshot <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/upshot>The > upshot of the discussions is that there will be no further redundancies. > - end result <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/thesaurus/end-result>The > end result of these changes should be a more efficient system for dealing > with complaints. > > What do you mean of all that? The fact that equivalent words exist in some > other languages has nothing to do with definition. > > I hope this is comprehensible. > > Best, > > Martin > > On 1/6/2022 8:21 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > > I agree with Francesco -- anywhere we don't have complete knowledge of the > activities there will be utility to such a shortcut, when there is an > intended outcome, but one which is not certain. > > An archeological expedition -- resulted in outcome of type "came home > empty handed" / "found something" > Commission of an artwork -- resulted in outcome of type "artist ran off > with the money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what > was wanted" / ... > Exhibition planning -- resulted in outcome of type "exhibition" / "no > exhibition" / "revised exhibition" / ... > Conservation of object -- resulted in outcome of type "destroyed object by > mistake" / "no change" / "repaired damage" / ... > etc. > > Rob > > > > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:56 PM George Bruseker <george.bruse...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Rob / Martin, >> >> Yes, Rob provides a nice instance example. >> >> Again, I just want to explore whether such a property has applications >> beyond this scope. Perhaps it isn't needed but if we look at more examples >> maybe a generalization will arise. >> >> Best, >> >> George >> >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 7:53 PM Robert Sanderson <azarot...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Let me try and explain my understanding >>> >>> There are events, such as the auction of a specific lot, in which the >>> objects in the lot are offered for sale. >>> >>> That event might result in the transfer of ownership of the objects in >>> the lot from their current owner to the new owner, but they might not -- >>> there might be no bidders, the reserve price might not be met, etc. At >>> which point there is no transfer of ownership at all, and hence we should >>> not create an E8 Acquisition because there was no change in ownership. >>> >>> So ... we have established that the auction of the lot is not the same >>> entity as the E8 acquisition, which might be triggered by the auction of >>> lot. Let's just call it an E7 Activity. >>> >>> Now, lets assume that we do not know anything at all about that >>> Acquisition. So, much like the other *_of_type properties, we don't want to >>> instantiate an E8 which was triggered by the E7 but with no properties, but >>> instead to just say that the E7 resulted in an activity of_type Sale, or >>> of_type Return, or of_type Unknown, or of_type Bought In. >>> >>> Thus: >>> >>> <auction_of_lot1> a E7_Activity ; >>> carried_out_by <auction house> ; >>> triggered_activity_of_type <bought-in> . >>> >>> <bought-in> a E55_Type . >>> >>> Something like that? >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:28 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig < >>> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>>> listCrm-sig@ics.forth.grhttp://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 >>>>> listCrm-sig@ics.forth.grhttp://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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Rob Sanderson >>> Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata >>> Yale University >>> >> > > -- > Rob Sanderson > Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata > Yale University > > > > -- > ------------------------------------ > 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
