Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note [HW reminder]
On 5/12/2023 7:53 AM, Wolfgang Schmidle wrote: Dear Martin, Thank you for your explanations, and sorry that I cannot join the discussion of this issue today. I think my point was that your formalisation is for "directly triggered", whereas the flood example suggests that "triggered" can also be used in the sense of "eventually triggered". Like the movements of the first and last ball in Newton's cradle, where there is no spatiotemporal overlap between the triggering and triggered event (and also no change of the kind of processes, and if there is sustained tension in this target system then virtually any system is in sustained tension). But of course Newton's cradle is a somewhat theoretical example, and if it is obvious to any expert that the flood example fits the scope note then so be it. Hi Wolfgang, You are welcome! Of course, the distinction between "triggers" and a more general causal chain is a bit tricky. Note however, that the flood waters (I assume) have penetrated into the library, as such, from a forensic point of view, substance of the triggering event is directly involved in the effect. In that sense, it is not as indirect as your example above. Landslides, structures breaking and other sudden events, on the other side, may in principle start without a trigger, just by gradually passing over the threshhold of stability by continued environmental impacts. Nothing is obvious: Each model is an answer to a question, and there are no models without questions. Taking the point of view that CRMsci is still at a level of information integration and cross-resource search, I take the implicit questions to be to understand risks, quantitatively, and to understand effects of such kinds of events. Possibly also, connecting an individual object to its presence at a certain time and place in the past, for whatever related reasoning. Conservation experts please critisize my view here! For this purpose, the level of detail I have defended would be adequate. If you want to make a model of the process details from the flood water entering a building until the effects on the books, one would first select the material with the above questions, ask for detailed analyses as they may exist, and then enter another research process locally with different models and tools, going into physical-chemical-biological interactions. At least, this is how I perceive the research worklfow. Typical triggering is, of course, pressing the button of a camera, etc. substantial for interacting with mechanical and electronic devices. A delay detonator may put a longer time between the final effect and the starting of the device, but the device ticking can be regarded as part of the triggered process. All the best, Martin Best, Wolfgang Am 30.04.2023 um 17:56 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig : ο»ΏDear 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) β 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
Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note [HW reminder]
Dear Martin, Thank you for your explanations, and sorry that I cannot join the discussion of this issue today. I think my point was that your formalisation is for "directly triggered", whereas the flood example suggests that "triggered" can also be used in the sense of "eventually triggered". Like the movements of the first and last ball in Newton's cradle, where there is no spatiotemporal overlap between the triggering and triggered event (and also no change of the kind of processes, and if there is sustained tension in this target system then virtually any system is in sustained tension). But of course Newton's cradle is a somewhat theoretical example, and if it is obvious to any expert that the flood example fits the scope note then so be it. Best, Wolfgang > Am 30.04.2023 um 17:56 schrieb Martin Doerr via Crm-sig > : > > ο»ΏDear 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) β 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?π >> >> 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 mate
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) β 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?π 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
Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note [HW reminder]
I think the meaning of a library flooding is that the books get wet. We can model to a microscopic scale if the situation requires, but this is not necessary for this example I think. In the case of the wildfire, it could be both, i.e. both triggered and also part of it, but we cannot assume that the triggering event always completely contains the triggered event. I would also propose a minor rewriting of Martin's paragraph: "The distinction of a triggering event A from the triggered event B lies in their difference of nature. The starting of B is the result of an interaction of material constituents of A with material constituents of B. However, B does not necessarily continue the kinds of processes of A. Therefore the triggering event A must spatiotemporally overlap with the initial time and area of the triggered event B. Any subsequent phenomena must initiate from this area and time." Is that an improvement at all? Or am I confusing things? All the best, Thanasis On 22/04/2023 08:38, Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig wrote: One more question: Can a wildfire trigger the destruction of a house, or does the burning down of the house form a part of the wildfire event? In other words, is there a difference of nature or is the destruction a continuation of the kinds of processes of the wildfire? Am 21.04.2023 um 12:59 schrieb Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig : 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) β 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? 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? 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) 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 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. 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 eve
Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note [HW reminder]
One more question: Can a wildfire trigger the destruction of a house, or does the burning down of the house form a part of the wildfire event? In other words, is there a difference of nature or is the destruction a continuation of the kinds of processes of the wildfire? > Am 21.04.2023 um 12:59 schrieb Wolfgang Schmidle via Crm-sig > : > > 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) β 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? > > 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? > > 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) > > 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 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. 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. >> >> Examples: >> The earthquake of Parnitha in 1999 triggered the rotational landslide that >> was observed along the road on the same day. (fictitious) >> The explosion at the Montserrat massif in 2007 (near Barcelona, Spain) >> triggered the rock fall event happened on 14 February 2007 (Vilajosana et >> al., 2008). >> The 1966 flood in Florence triggered mould growth on books stored in >> flooded library rooms (Rubinstein, N., 1966) >> In First Order Logic: >> O13(x,y) β E5(x) >> O13(x,y) β E5(y) >> O13(x,y) β P182(x,y) >> >> NEW >> >> O13 triggered (was 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
Re: [Crm-sig] Issue 625: O13 *triggers* scope note [HW reminder]
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) β 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? 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? 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) 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 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. 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. > > Examples: > The earthquake of Parnitha in 1999 triggered the rotational landslide that > was observed along the road on the same day. (fictitious) > The explosion at the Montserrat massif in 2007 (near Barcelona, Spain) > triggered the rock fall event happened on 14 February 2007 (Vilajosana et > al., 2008). > The 1966 flood in Florence triggered mould growth on books stored in > flooded library rooms (Rubinstein, N., 1966) > In First Order Logic: > O13(x,y) β E5(x) > O13(x,y) β E5(y) > O13(x,y) β P182(x,y) > > NEW > > O13 triggered (was 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 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. > > 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
