Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note PRINCIPLES
Dear All, By the way, I think I just made a statement below about principles. Would you regard this as noteworthy as principles? Best, Martin On 4/30/2023 6:36 PM, Martin Doerr wrote: Dear Wolfgang, Your questions well-taken, but please do not seek a logical surrogate of reality. It does not exist. The logic can be not more than an overlay, approximating and simplifying reality, in more detail: On 4/21/2023 1:59 PM, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote: Here's a diff: * label: OLD O13 triggers (is triggered by) NEW O13 triggered (was triggered by) (in the examples it was already called "triggered" rather than "triggers") * scope note: Part 1 is unchanged: This property associates an instance of E5 Event that triggers another instance of E5 Event with the latter. It identifies the interaction between events: an event can activate (trigger) other events in a target system that is in a situation of sustained tension, such as a trap or an unstable mountain slope giving way to a land slide after a rain or earthquake. Part 2: OLD In that sense the triggering event is interpreted as a cause. However, the association of the two events is based on their temporal proximity, with the triggering event ending when the triggered event starts. NEW The distinction of the triggering event from the triggered one lies in their difference of nature: The starting of the triggered event is the result of an interaction of constituents with the triggering one, but not a continuation of the kinds of processes of the latter. Therefore the triggering event must spatiotemporally overlap with the initial time and area of the triggered event, and the spreading out of the subsequent phenomena must initiate from this area and time and not from multiple independent areas. * FOL: O13(x,y) ⇒ P182(x,y) removed (Domain, range, quantification, examples are unchanged) About the changes: Scope note part 2: If there needs to be an interaction of constituents and thus a spatiotemporal overlap, then I am not sure I understand the 1966 flood example. There is an overlap between the flood and a book getting wet and an overlap between a book being wet as a result and the growing of the mould, but is there an obvious interaction between the flood and the mould beginning to grow on a book? I am assuming O13 is not meant to be transitive? What is the initial time and area of "mould growth on books stored in flooded library rooms"? Is it obvious that this area is connected and not multiple independent areas? Well, it is obvious to any expert. The silent assumption of such a case of "causality" is that the interaction would not have happened under "normal" circumstances. The books obviously became wet by the flood. No normal library would make the books wet otherwise. The statement that the flood "triggered" actually approximates and simplifies the statement that the books became wet by the flood in a way that cold not be remedied readily by the library. In general, is not possible to break down such processes into discrete atomic logical steps. There is a considerable logical-philosophical complexity to any concept of causality. Therefore we have refused so far to introduce such a concept into CRMbase. To my understanding, the reasoning is about defaults of the environment, blaming the more exceptional to be the "cause", whereas others could equally blame the lack of foresight and protective measures, or any other random factor, just as someone getting in the path of a bullet by walking. Would that explanation satisfy your question?😁 FOL / superproperties: The new scope note suggests P132 "spatiotemporally overlaps with", as well as P176 "starts before the start of" (also suggested by Thanasis) and P173i "ends after or with the start of"? Additional questions: Scope note part 1: What is the sustained tension in the target system (books stored in library rooms) in the 1966 flood example? Or in a house that is destroyed by an earthquake or a wildfire? The sustained tension in this case is the sensitivity of the material to humidity. Whatever would raise humidity sufficiently would "trigger" such a process. Examples: Since we want to get rid of fictitious examples, would it make sense to replace the earthquake/landslide example? Non-fictitious examples would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_California#2018_fire or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_Things_Go (an artistic cascade of triggering events) Sure, I wonder if colleagues from FORTH could recover landslide examples from the European InGeoClouds project. Good examples could also be some houses falling down at the seaside around Santa Barbara coast in California, because of landing erosion approaching them. All the best, Martin Best, Wolfgang Am 20.04.2023 um 14:01 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig : Dear All, Here my first go: OLD O13 triggers (is triggered by) Domain: E5
Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note [HW reminder]
Dear Wolfgang, Your questions well-taken, but please do not seek a logical surrogate of reality. It does not exist. The logic can be not more than an overlay, approximating and simplifying reality, in more detail: On 4/21/2023 1:59 PM, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote: Here's a diff: * label: OLD O13 triggers (is triggered by) NEW O13 triggered (was triggered by) (in the examples it was already called "triggered" rather than "triggers") * scope note: Part 1 is unchanged: This property associates an instance of E5 Event that triggers another instance of E5 Event with the latter. It identifies the interaction between events: an event can activate (trigger) other events in a target system that is in a situation of sustained tension, such as a trap or an unstable mountain slope giving way to a land slide after a rain or earthquake. Part 2: OLD In that sense the triggering event is interpreted as a cause. However, the association of the two events is based on their temporal proximity, with the triggering event ending when the triggered event starts. NEW The distinction of the triggering event from the triggered one lies in their difference of nature: The starting of the triggered event is the result of an interaction of constituents with the triggering one, but not a continuation of the kinds of processes of the latter. Therefore the triggering event must spatiotemporally overlap with the initial time and area of the triggered event, and the spreading out of the subsequent phenomena must initiate from this area and time and not from multiple independent areas. * FOL: O13(x,y) ⇒ P182(x,y) removed (Domain, range, quantification, examples are unchanged) About the changes: Scope note part 2: If there needs to be an interaction of constituents and thus a spatiotemporal overlap, then I am not sure I understand the 1966 flood example. There is an overlap between the flood and a book getting wet and an overlap between a book being wet as a result and the growing of the mould, but is there an obvious interaction between the flood and the mould beginning to grow on a book? I am assuming O13 is not meant to be transitive? What is the initial time and area of "mould growth on books stored in flooded library rooms"? Is it obvious that this area is connected and not multiple independent areas? Well, it is obvious to any expert. The silent assumption of such a case of "causality" is that the interaction would not have happened under "normal" circumstances. The books obviously became wet by the flood. No normal library would make the books wet otherwise. The statement that the flood "triggered" actually approximates and simplifies the statement that the books became wet by the flood in a way that cold not be remedied readily by the library. In general, is not possible to break down such processes into discrete atomic logical steps. There is a considerable logical-philosophical complexity to any concept of causality. Therefore we have refused so far to introduce such a concept into CRMbase. To my understanding, the reasoning is about defaults of the environment, blaming the more exceptional to be the "cause", whereas others could equally blame the lack of foresight and protective measures, or any other random factor, just as someone getting in the path of a bullet by walking. Would that explanation satisfy your question?😁 FOL / superproperties: The new scope note suggests P132 "spatiotemporally overlaps with", as well as P176 "starts before the start of" (also suggested by Thanasis) and P173i "ends after or with the start of"? Additional questions: Scope note part 1: What is the sustained tension in the target system (books stored in library rooms) in the 1966 flood example? Or in a house that is destroyed by an earthquake or a wildfire? The sustained tension in this case is the sensitivity of the material to humidity. Whatever would raise humidity sufficiently would "trigger" such a process. Examples: Since we want to get rid of fictitious examples, would it make sense to replace the earthquake/landslide example? Non-fictitious examples would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_California#2018_fire or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_Things_Go (an artistic cascade of triggering events) Sure, I wonder if colleagues from FORTH could recover landslide examples from the European InGeoClouds project. Good examples could also be some houses falling down at the seaside around Santa Barbara coast in California, because of landing erosion approaching them. All the best, Martin Best, Wolfgang Am 20.04.2023 um 14:01 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig : Dear All, Here my first go: OLD O13 triggers (is triggered by) Domain: E5 Event Range: E5 Event Quantification: many to many (0,n:0,n) Scope note: This property associates an instance of E5 Event that triggers another instance of E5 Event with the latter. It identifies the int
