Dear Martin and all, The new version of scope note is more understandable to me. I had challenges in recognizing the events and found the borders among them. I’m eager to know the others opinions on the new version of scope note.
Kind regards, Massoomeh > On 17. Nov 2018, at 19:42, Martin Doerr <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear All, > > After many objections to my last attempt, here my new reformulation of the > scope note of E5 Event. > > The reason is, that the definition previously given, makes the impression > that events are complements of states. > The world however, to our best knowledge, is NOT compatible with an > "Asynchronous State Machine". If events where complements of states and > vice-versa, we would create a Closed World. The question is, in information > integration, which concept has an ontological nature, i.e. can be recognized > as something existing in a distinct way independent from the observer. > > It appears that events are of that ontological kind, and states in general > are an abstraction of the absence of events in certain parts of reality > arbitrarily restricted by consideration. > > Therefore, the definition of event must not use states as identifying > criterion. Notwithstanding, events may initiate or terminate states however > we define them. > > Consider also the following: Four soldiers fight simultaneously each other. > Are these 6 different fights, or one fight? Are the rats fleeing in panic > part of it? I'd argue for one fight. Rats not being part, but present. That > means however that the type "fighting" + the coherence of it makes up the > unity and substance of the event. It appears to me, that not the states > achieved, but the coherence and distinctness of some phenomena restricted to > a specific type of process make up what we intuitively regard as an event? > > E5 Event > > Subclass of: E4 Period > > Superclass of: E7 Activity > > E63 Beginning of Existence > > E64 End of Existence > > > > Scope note: This class comprises changes of states in cultural, social or > physical systems, regardless of scale, brought about by a series or group of > coherent physical, cultural, technological or legal phenomena. Such changes > of state will affect instances of E77 Persistent Item or its subclasses. > > The distinction between an E5 Event and an E4 Period is partly a question of > the scale of observation. Viewed at a coarse level of detail, an E5 Event is > an ‘instantaneous’ change of state. At a fine level, the E5 Event can be > analysed into its component phenomena within a space and time frame, and as > such can be seen as an E4 Period. The reverse is not necessarily the case: > not all instances of E4 Period give rise to a noteworthy change of state. > > Attempt of a new one: > > > Scope note: This class comprises distinct, delimited and coherent > processes and interactions of material nature, in cultural, social or > physical systems, involving and affecting instances of E77 Persistent Item in > a characteristic way according to the kind of process. Typical examples are > meetings, birth, death, actions of decision taking, making or inventing > things, but also more complex and extended ones such as conferences, > elections, building a castle or battles. Whereas, for instance, the > continuous growth of a tree lacks the limitation of an event, its germination > from a seed qualifies as event. Whereas the blowing of the wind lacks > distinctness and limitation, a hurricane, a flood or an earthquake qualify as > events. We even comprise mental processes under events, in case they are > connected with a material externalization of their results, such as the > creation of a poem, a performance or a change of intention becoming obvious > by respective actions o declarations. The effects of an instance of E5 Event > may not lead to relevant permanent changes of properties and relations of the > items involved in it, such as not recorded performances. Of course, in order > to be documented, some kind of evidence for an event must exist, be it > witnesses, traces or products of the event. > > Whereas instances of E4 Period require some form of coherence between its > constituent phenomena, in addition, the essential constituents of instances > of E5 Event should contribute to an overall effect, such as the utterances > during a meeting and the listening of the audience. Viewed at a coarse level > of detail, an E5 Event may appear as if it had an ‘instantaneous’ overall > effect, but any process or interaction of material nature is extended in time > and space. At a fine level, instances of E5 Event may be analysed into > component phenomena and phases within a space and timeframe, and as such are > to be seen as a period, regardless the size of the phenomena. The reverse is > not necessarily the case: not all instances of E4 Period give rise to a > noteworthy overall effect. > > > Opinions? > > Best, > > Martin > -- > ------------------------------------ > Dr. Martin Doerr > > Honorary Head of the > > 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 > > Vox:+30(2810)391625 > Email: [email protected] > Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
