Dear Francesco,
Please let us not confuse everything. The CRM is in no ways grounded in
physics. It is grounded in the scholarly views of museum curators and a
set of other disciplines dealing with historical facts of the past in
careful collaborations over 25 years. Please study the history of the
CRM, beginning from the Smithsonian in Washington. The CRM is compatible
with GIS systems, physics, biology and othersciences, but does not
describe their theories, but exclusively particular facts of the past.
It includes social constructs already, and no no ways excludes social
disciplines.
The only real bias of the CRM is purely technological and inevitable:
Information integration via machines based on binary logic, as a means
to link context-free identifiable individuals from human provided data,
which form a small but important subset of historical data, which the a
collaborative empirical result of the work of the CRM-SIG. This
determines the modelling principles of the CRM.
If you introduce other functions or principles of modeling, we have
first to understand their new epistemic function in the scientific
discourse, and understand if and how binary logic based machines etc,
may be able to process them epistemically correctly for the intended
purpose. If you introduce other functions or principles of modeling, the
model will necessarily be different from the CRM itself and possibly
incompatible.
This *cannot* be discussed vi a e-mail exchange, it is too complex. Any
such attempt would increase the already existing confusion of epistemic
and technological insights and necessities. We have to organize vitual
face-to-face meetings for that purpose.
My previous messages where *solely* about the word "outcome" and its
polysemy. I perfectly understand the word. I only tried to make the CRM
audience aware of the ontological methodologic questions necessary to
reveal the polysemy of this word and enable choosing the senses that can
be modelled adequately. I also tried, without success, to make you aware
of the extreme context dependency of any such word. If this has been
misunderstood, we need to discuss this *face-to-face *with enough time.
The necessary explanations and disambiguations definitely exceed my
writing capacities.
Looking forward to a substantial face-to-face discussion and resolution
of any misunderstanding,
Best wishes,
Martin
On 1/6/2022 9:03 PM, Francesco Beretta wrote:
Dear Martin, and (indirectly) Rob and George,
Thank you for your comments.
Le 06.01.22 à 18:13, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :
Dear Francesco,
Your arguments well taken, I repeat:
The speech act in CRM is identical to the sale, (Acquisition), if at
all the speech act has a legal character, and if at all the sale is
executed via speech act, and not via e-commerce or whatsoever.
The point is: why care at all about building CRMsoc if everything is
already present in CRMbase? And, furthermore, are we sure that we have
a well grounded foundational analysis of social facts in CRMbase?
Especially as we know that it's grounded in the epistemic view of
classical physic (I mean not quantic)? Isn't this a somehow different
domain of discourse from social life as such? And shouldn't we take
car not to model a domain without taking into account the paradigms of
the disciplines studying the domain under consideration, i.e. social
life?
Le 06.01.22 à 12:54, George Bruseker via Crm-sig a écrit :
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.
The cheap and cheerful solution would just be to put this as a p2
has type... the typical solution.
It would nice to be more accurate though since the categorization
isn't of the event itself but of its typical outcome. 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).
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.
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
_______________________________________________
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
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
