Hello Martin D., and all -- I am a long-time reader of this list who has recently developed a Spatial History Ontology (SHO) that extends and modifies DOLCE and borrows several important elements of CIDOC-CRM. The application scenario for its development is the genre of digital historical atlas, so some requirements differ from the museum domain. In fact CIDOC-CRM was the initial scaffold for my work; the CRM is a great document, obviously broadly useful as its increasing adoption shows, and I hope to make a formal mapping to it eventually. I have implemented my SHO with lots of exemplar data in a relational spatial database, from which one can perform spatial and statistical analyses and make maps. This thread isn't the place to go into detail but it seemed like a reasonable place to make a self-introduction and a few related comments - I can send my 2010 dissertation or a draft précis paper to anyone interested.
One of the reasons I developed something new has to do with the E7_Activity is-a E5_Event construction that this thread touches on. I thought it important to model event composition in order to ultimately arrive at event types in a "bottom-up" fashion. That is, what kinds of events there are is among other things a function of their activity composition. So the temporal side of the SHO looks like this: PERDURANT - Event - Activity -- Agentive activity -- Non-agentive activity - State - Period Activity here is non-specific 'goings-on' - effectively, it is temporal substance, akin to material substance - and sub-classed with E55_Type. Events are composed of Activity and may be composite (multiple sub-events to any granularity). Activity becomes an Event when you specify temporal bounds. Events are described in terms of spatial and temporal location as well as unlimited E55_Type hierarchies, but also critically in Participated relations (for example of Persons and/or Groups performing Activity in Roles 'some-time-during' or 'throughout' the Event duration interval; also, material and non-material objects of any kind can be Product-Of, a sub-relation of Participated). Event-Event relations include a P9-like 'Part-Of' and a P15-like 'Influenced,' which for me subsumes motivated, purpose-of, caused, facilitated, initiated, perpetuated, hindered, terminated, and setting-for. So Events have Influence and Product results: Event/Activity results specified by 'Influenced' and non-temporal Product results specified by 'Participated.' I don't know that any of this is constructive for the specific CIDOC implementation issue raised in the thread; hope it is of interest though and I welcome comments and questions, on the list or off-line. Regards Karl ---------------------------------------------- Karl Grossner, PhD Center for Spatial Studies Department of Geography University of California, Santa Barbara > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Causation and events (Martin Scholz) > 2. Re: Causation and events (Athina Kritsotaki) > 3. ISSUE: P83,P84 (martin) > 4. Re: Causation and events (martin) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:53:47 +0200 > From: Martin Scholz <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Causation and events > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Agnes, > > Am 06.10.2011 16:51, schrieb Agnes Thomas: > > Hi, > > > > isn't it that both P15i_influenced and P17i_motivated have domain and > > range E1_CRM_Entity? So it shouldn't be a problem to use it with > > E5_Event as well as E7_Activity. > > Unfortunately this is not the case. The range of both is restricted to E7 > Activity (for the inverse, i.e. the domain of "normal" property is restricted to > E7 Activity) > > > > > There is also P123_resulted_in, but with domain and range > > E77_Persistent_Item. It would be really useful to have it for E5/E7, > > too. > P123 has its domain restricted to E81 Transformation, which is a subclass of E5 > Event. This is an interesting property. If I remodel my examples and replace > the > caused event E5 by some material or immaterial event outcome (an E77), I > can > express the causing event as cause for the outcome: > The eruption of Vesuv (E81 Transformation) had as result (P123) the ruins of > Pompeii (E77). > A stabbing (E81) resulted in (P123) a dead person X (E77). > > This is not exactly what I was looking for (event to event), but it may be an > interesting alternative! Although, it's fine for the examples above, I wonder > if > the restriction to E81 will lead to problems in causal relations. > > > > > > For the Hellespont Project (modelling historical events taken from an > > ancient greek text), a further question would be how to distinguish > > exactly between E5_Event and E7-Activity. Is the Persian War an > > E5_Event or an E7_Activity? > > I think, the key phrase in the scope note is that E7 is an "action intentionally > carried out" by a single person or a group. As to my understanding, a car > accident would thus not be an E7 unless it is provoked on purpose. Neither > would > be manslaughter/unintentional killing. In the case of a war, I think there is > always the possibility for both parties not to battle, so it's an E7. > In documentational practise, I can imagine that intentionality is really hard to > prove or reject. > > Martin > > > > > Agnes. > > > > > > > > > > Zitat von Martin Scholz<[email protected]>: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> how can causation be modeled between two events A and B? > >> Examples: > >> The eruption of Vesuv (E5 Event) caused the destruction of Pompeii (E5). > >> A stabbing (E5 Event / E7 Activity) caused the death of X (E5). > >> > >> As far as I can see, there is no direct way, i.e. no property for that. > >> > >> In the last example P15 influenced could be applied if the stabbing > >> is modeled > >> as E7. But influence is weaker than if not different from causation. Also, it > >> cannot be used for the first example, as P15 only applies to E7 > >> Activities, not > >> E5 Events in general. Is there a reason for that? Events could be > influenced, > >> too, for example a flood by a dam. > >> P20 had specific purpose again can only be applied to the last > >> example. Although > >> it implies causation, the meaning would shift to willful killing and exclude > >> accidental death. > >> > >> A circumscription would be to define an event C and state > >> C P10 contains A > >> C P10 contains B > >> A (P120 occurs before OR P119 meets in time with OR P116 starts) B > >> and infer that therefore there must be some causal connection > >> between A and B. > >> But this is awkward and very indirect. > >> > >> If there are no better solutions, I propose the introduction of a property > >> PXXX caused (domain& range: E5). > >> > >> Martin Scholz > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Martin Scholz, Dipl-Inf. > >> Artificial Intelligence Division > >> Department of Computer Science > >> University of Erlangen-Nuremberg > >> Haberstr. 2 > >> 91058 Erlangen > >> > >> martin.scholz at informatik.uni-erlangen.de > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Crm-sig mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Crm-sig mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > > > -- > Martin Scholz, Dipl-Inf. > Artificial Intelligence Division > Department of Computer Science > University of Erlangen-Nuremberg > Haberstr. 2 > 91058 Erlangen > > martin.scholz at informatik.uni-erlangen.de > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:41:40 +0300 > From: "Athina Kritsotaki" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Causation and events > To: "Martin Scholz" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-7 > > > > Hello, > > I agree with Martin Doerr and I believe in archaeology we make hypotheses > on events that might have caused states, but this is part of the > interpretation of the archaeologist (which is part of the definition). > In a previous project/proposal about how to model periods (a Period > Thesaurus- an extension to CIDOC CRM), we used the notion of ?starting? > and ?terminating events? (as a relation between them). > Some distinct events are related to the definition of a period. We > questioned that a single historical, religious, military, political or > physical event can have a definitive affect on a period or an event. We > regard that an event may be catalytic to social change and thus be loosely > synchronized with the end or start points of a period/event. We mark them > as ?starting event? or ?terminating event?. We do not regard those events > as causal and the change of a period or an event may quite well happen > without such an event. Therefore we use these events as chronological > markers rather than as part of the definition. > > Regards, > Athina Kritsotaki > > > > Hello, > > > > how can causation be modeled between two events A and B? > > Examples: > > The eruption of Vesuv (E5 Event) caused the destruction of Pompeii (E5). > > A stabbing (E5 Event / E7 Activity) caused the death of X (E5). > > > > As far as I can see, there is no direct way, i.e. no property for that. > > > > In the last example P15 influenced could be applied if the stabbing is > > modeled > > as E7. But influence is weaker than if not different from causation. Also, > > it > > cannot be used for the first example, as P15 only applies to E7 > > Activities, not > > E5 Events in general. Is there a reason for that? Events could be > > influenced, > > too, for example a flood by a dam. > > P20 had specific purpose again can only be applied to the last example. > > Although > > it implies causation, the meaning would shift to willful killing and > > exclude > > accidental death. > > > > A circumscription would be to define an event C and state > > C P10 contains A > > C P10 contains B > > A (P120 occurs before OR P119 meets in time with OR P116 starts) B > > and infer that therefore there must be some causal connection between A > > and B. > > But this is awkward and very indirect. > > > > If there are no better solutions, I propose the introduction of a property > > PXXX caused (domain & range: E5). > > > > Martin Scholz > > > > > > -- > > Martin Scholz, Dipl-Inf. > > Artificial Intelligence Division > > Department of Computer Science > > University of Erlangen-Nuremberg > > Haberstr. 2 > > 91058 Erlangen > > > > martin.scholz at informatik.uni-erlangen.de > > _______________________________________________ > > Crm-sig mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:44:04 +0300 > From: martin <[email protected]> > Subject: [Crm-sig] ISSUE: P83,P84 > To: crm-sig <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Dear All, > > In the name of Vladimir Alexiev, I'd like to repeat that > > E52 Time-Span. P83 had at least duration. E54 Dimension > > E52 Time-Span. P84 had at most duration. E54 Dimension > > should be merged, once E54 has its own imprecision definition. > > I'd like to mention, that ALL crm-sig members are invited to send > messages with "ISSUE" to the list, and all "ISSUES" will be answered > in the subsequent meetings. No authorization required. > > Best wishes, > > Martin > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | > | Email: [email protected] | > | > Center for Cultural Informatics | > Information Systems Laboratory | > Institute of Computer Science | > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | > Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 15:19:03 +0300 > From: martin <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Causation and events > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Dear Martin, Agnes, > > On 10/7/2011 12:53 PM, Martin Scholz wrote: > > Hi Agnes, > > > > Am 06.10.2011 16:51, schrieb Agnes Thomas: > >> Hi, > >> > >> isn't it that both P15i_influenced and P17i_motivated have domain and > >> range E1_CRM_Entity? So it shouldn't be a problem to use it with > >> E5_Event as well as E7_Activity. > > > > Unfortunately this is not the case. The range of both is restricted to E7 > > Activity (for the inverse, i.e. the domain of "normal" property is restricted > to > > E7 Activity) > > Exactly. This link is for cases in which some person or group take up > impressions > or orders which we regard as having had an effect on the reported activity. > > > >> > >> There is also P123_resulted_in, but with domain and range > >> E77_Persistent_Item. It would be really useful to have it for E5/E7, > >> too. > > P123 has its domain restricted to E81 Transformation, which is a subclass of > E5 > > Event. This is an interesting property. If I remodel my examples and replace > the > > caused event E5 by some material or immaterial event outcome (an E77), I > can > > express the causing event as cause for the outcome: > > The eruption of Vesuv (E81 Transformation) had as result (P123) the ruins > of > > Pompeii (E77). > > A stabbing (E81) resulted in (P123) a dead person X (E77). > > This is correct, and an additional detail to the solution I have described: It > again > takes "causal" and "effectual" events as one process, the "transformation". It > describes > the view I mentioned, that we regard as efect of the event not another > event, but the persistent > state of things after it. It is correct to characterize an event as Activity, Death > and > Transformation simultaneously, if the dead body is an object in a museum or > otherwise > subject of extended documentation afterwards. Please note, that the CRM is > not prescriptive! > We should first ask ourselves, what we want to document and what the > formal queries for > a research question should be. To create in a knowledge base an instance of > a dead body for the > beauty of being able to say that is not useful. > > > > This is not exactly what I was looking for (event to event), but it may be an > > interesting alternative! Although, it's fine for the examples above, I > wonder if > > the restriction to E81 will lead to problems in causal relations. > > > > > >> > >> For the Hellespont Project (modelling historical events taken from an > >> ancient greek text), a further question would be how to distinguish > >> exactly between E5_Event and E7-Activity. Is the Persian War an > >> E5_Event or an E7_Activity? > > This may not be the right question. One cannot "distinguish" between a class > and its > superclass. Rather, the question is, what properties an instance must have to > qualify also as instance of the subclass. > Hence: the Persian War is an E5_Event. Is the Persian War also an > E7_Activity? We can fairly > assume plans for any war. So, any war is also an Activity. > > > > I think, the key phrase in the scope note is that E7 is an "action intentionally > > carried out" by a single person or a group. As to my understanding, a car > > accident would thus not be an E7 unless it is provoked on purpose. Neither > would > > be manslaughter/unintentional killing. In the case of a war, I think there is > > always the possibility for both parties not to battle, so it's an E7. > > In documentational practise, I can imagine that intentionality is really hard > to > > prove or reject. > > Exactly. In the CRM-SIG discussions, we decided that intentionality > is not to be seen to require pre-existing plans, only "active" participation. I > may > a car accident rather as activity as long as it is not provoked by heart stroke or > failure. > But in case of doubt, the more general class is always the correct choice, as > Martin suggests. > The question of classification is secondary to the use of relationships. I'd > argue that registering a > car-accident as Event with participants, possibly being also death of > somebody, is adequate > to describe the case. > > If someone describes a car accident due to high speed as E7_Activity, a query > assuming only > E5_Event for an accident will still give the correct answer, due to the smart > subsumption... > > Still, Martin, it would be nice for us to learn about your application. > > Best, > > martin > > > > Martin > > > >> > >> Agnes. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Zitat von Martin Scholz<[email protected]>: > >> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> how can causation be modeled between two events A and B? > >>> Examples: > >>> The eruption of Vesuv (E5 Event) caused the destruction of Pompeii > (E5). > >>> A stabbing (E5 Event / E7 Activity) caused the death of X (E5). > >>> > >>> As far as I can see, there is no direct way, i.e. no property for that. > >>> > >>> In the last example P15 influenced could be applied if the stabbing > >>> is modeled > >>> as E7. But influence is weaker than if not different from causation. Also, > it > >>> cannot be used for the first example, as P15 only applies to E7 > >>> Activities, not > >>> E5 Events in general. Is there a reason for that? Events could be > influenced, > >>> too, for example a flood by a dam. > >>> P20 had specific purpose again can only be applied to the last > >>> example. Although > >>> it implies causation, the meaning would shift to willful killing and exclude > >>> accidental death. > >>> > >>> A circumscription would be to define an event C and state > >>> C P10 contains A > >>> C P10 contains B > >>> A (P120 occurs before OR P119 meets in time with OR P116 starts) B > >>> and infer that therefore there must be some causal connection > >>> between A and B. > >>> But this is awkward and very indirect. > >>> > >>> If there are no better solutions, I propose the introduction of a property > >>> PXXX caused (domain& range: E5). > >>> > >>> Martin Scholz > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Martin Scholz, Dipl-Inf. > >>> Artificial Intelligence Division > >>> Department of Computer Science > >>> University of Erlangen-Nuremberg > >>> Haberstr. 2 > >>> 91058 Erlangen > >>> > >>> martin.scholz at informatik.uni-erlangen.de > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Crm-sig mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Crm-sig mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > >> > > > > > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 | > Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 | > | Email: [email protected] | > | > Center for Cultural Informatics | > Information Systems Laboratory | > Institute of Computer Science | > Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH) | > | > Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece | > | > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl | > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > End of Crm-sig Digest, Vol 58, Issue 6 > **************************************
