I meant the following. If I shoot a person in a street, this event has me as participant via P11 and all the people in the street as bystanders via P12. It looks strange that the victim has no direct relation with the omicide except P12 “was present”, like all the other people in the crime scene. Since an Event is a change in something, one could expect that there is a direct relationship with the thing(s) affected. I would also expect that in most cases, loosely speaking, an event modifies, and not destroys, for which there would be the dedicated property P13.
Look at this example, concerning an E5 Event that P2 has type E55 Type “Vandalism of art” The fact: “On 30/12/56, Ugo Ungaza Villegas threw a rock at the painting [Mona Lisa]; this resulted in the loss of a speck of pigment near the left elbow” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_of_art). the above E5 Event P11 had participant E39 Ugo Ungaza Villegas P12 occurred in the presence of “Le nozze di Cana” (painting by Veronese located in the same room, unaffected by the vandalic act) P12 occurred in the presence of “Mona Lisa” (the victim) P12 occurred in the presence of John Doe (an American Louvre visitor who was there by chance, not involved in the planned vandalism) P12 occurred in the presence of a sofa (placed near the wall, for tired visitors; not sure there was one but could be) P12 occurred in the presence of the stone (thrown at the painting, now in the Police archives as evidence n. 123456) In conclusion, being present is often a poor property, bringing little information, except perhaps in the case of the Yalta Conference. Incidentally, activities defined as subclasses of E7 (Acquisition, Move, transfer, etc.) allow to specify the thing they affect via an appropriate property; this is not the case for E7 itself, so for an activity not included in the CRM list one is confined to this “Presence” story. Et al. Prof. Franco Niccolucci Director, VAST-LAB PIN - U. of Florence Scientific Coordinator ARIADNE - PARTHENOS Piazza Ciardi 25 59100 Prato, Italy > Il giorno 22 mag 2018, alle ore 05:32, George Bruseker > <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > Hi Rob et al., > > Just to jump in on the reason for this particular scope note reformulation > work. > > The reason behind the effort to articulate a new scope note lies in the > reference to states in the previous scope note which has caused an ongoing > debate regarding where then ‘states’ are in CIDOC CRM. Given that this debate > recurs frequently, it seems worth the effort to kill the ‘states’ language.. > > When you say that E5 doesn’t have a relation to E77, what do you mean? There > is p12 as the most general relation between an E2 kind of thing and and an > E77. Or do you mean something else? > > Cheers, > > George > >> On May 22, 2018, at 12:52 AM, Robert Sanderson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Agreed entirely with this. The proposed scope note seems more complicated >> than the current one, for no additional value. The observability also >> brings into question the nature of the potential observer – can there be >> more than one observer for an event that lasts longer than a human lifetime? >> If there were an all-powerful, omni-present being, would that being count >> towards being observable (at which point, there’s no real meaning to >> “observable”) and if not, then what does count? Must all parts of the event >> be observable? >> >> The lack of the relationship between the Event and an E77 has vexed us for a >> long time, such as for representing the ownership period (err, event) of an >> object. >> >> Rob >> >> From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Franco Niccolucci >> <[email protected]> >> Date: Monday, May 21, 2018 at 6:29 PM >> To: Martin Doerr <[email protected]> >> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note of event >> >> >> >> There is a subtle difference between “observed” and “observable”: “observed" >> is an “accident”, “observable” is “substance”. >> >> So the lone moonlight dance is not observed for lack of observers, although >> it is observable. What the dancer thinks during the performance, and by the >> way also his intention to do so, are, instead, not observable, therefore can >> never observed, a fortiori. >> >> Incidentally, the Event is defined as a change of state of some E77 >> Persistent Item, which curiously has participants as per P11, and also >> voyeurs as per P12, but cannot affect (=change the state of) anything for >> the lack of the related property e.g. P?? affects E77. >> >> What’s the problem with the old scope note? >> >> Franco >> >> Prof. Franco Niccolucci >> Director, VAST-LAB >> PIN - U. of Florence >> Scientific Coordinator >> ARIADNE - PARTHENOS >> >> Piazza Ciardi 25 >> 59100 Prato, Italy >> >> >> Il giorno 21 mag 2018, alle ore 21:43, Martin Doerr <[email protected]> ha >> scritto: >> On 5/21/2018 9:39 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote: >> 'in-principle' is in principle ok, but the term gives a hint that what >> follows is not the case. At least for persons with knwlegde of the life in >> the former Soviet block. >> Don't agree, may need a better term. If someone dances on the road, but >> nobody is there, because the road is closed, it is not >> observable, because there is no observer. But the same kind of event, in >> other circumstances, could be observed. There is nothing in intrinsic to >> itself which prevents observation. >> A better idea how to say that? >> Cheers, >> Martin >> It is better dropped. >> Best, >> Christian-Emil >> ________________________________________ >> From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Franco Niccolucci >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: 21 May 2018 19:39 >> To: Martin Doerr >> Cc: crm-sig >> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note of event >> see below >> F. >> Prof. Franco Niccolucci >> Director, VAST-LAB >> PIN - U. of Florence >> Scientific Coordinator >> ARIADNE - PARTHENOS >> Piazza Ciardi 25 >> 59100 Prato, Italy >> Attempt of a new one: >> Scope note: This class comprises in-principle observable, >> I think that the CRM concerns ONLY observables; if so, the specification is >> superfluous. >> distinct and delimited processes of material nature, in cultural, social or >> physical systems, even in a human brain, >> Definitely FORTH must have developed a telepathy machine :). >> What happens in the human brain is observable only (indirectly) with >> electro-encephalogram and the like, so: if this is the intended meaning, it >> is just a physical process as any other, e.g. those involving human like >> blood pressure vslue, hearth beat, etc. and not worth special mentioning. If >> instead this statement refers to (suggests?) observation of thinking, this >> is (luckily) not observable. >> involving and affecting in a characteristic way instances of E77 >> Persistent Item, brought about by some coherent physical, social or >> technological phenomena. An instance of E5 Event may or may not >> Only what *may* be affected, or *may not* be affected, somehow supports an >> identity criterium. What may or may not be affected looks as irrelevant, >> because we cannot understand from the consequences (or lack thereof) that >> some event took place, leading to an observed change (or lack of change), >> because the event may or may not have led to such change. >> lead >> to relevant permanent changes of properties and relations of items involved >> in it. >> Properties and kinds of things that may be affected are characteristic for >> the type of an event. >> This is somehow contradictory with the previous statement: it states that >> there are things that may be affected, and other things that may not; >> perhaps also a third grouping that “may or may not". In all, it is a bit >> messy. >> Franco >> please comment! >> Best, >> 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) | >> | >> N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | >> GR70013 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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) | >> | >> N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, | >> GR70013 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
