Similar to Franco’s response, I think what we’re missing is the equivalent of P16, but for Event or even Period. For example, the Period (or Event?) that represents the existence of an object occurs in the presence of many many objects, but only one is the object that the Period is for.
Rob From: George Bruseker <[email protected]> Date: Monday, May 21, 2018 at 11:32 PM To: Robert Sanderson <[email protected]> Cc: Franco Niccolucci <[email protected]>, Martin Doerr <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Scope note of event 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Franco Niccolucci <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, May 21, 2018 at 6:29 PM To: Martin Doerr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Franco Niccolucci <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
