Dear Robert, All,
Yes, I support this interpretation. There is a question of monotonicity
of things described at the Group level with things described
individually. This is more important than differentiation between the
Group and the individual acting on behalf of it. Can be more detailed
wrt the part of link.
Best,
Martin
On 4/15/2020 9:57 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think the event partitioning pattern is not
so unreasonable…
<takin-activities> a Activity ;
label “all of the activities of Takin Solutions” ;
carried_out_by <takin> .
<modeling> a Activity ;
label “modeling activity carried out by George, as a member of Takin” ;
carried_out_by <george> ;
part_of <takin-activities> .
<george> a Person ;
label “George” ;
member_of <takin> .
<takin> a Group ;
label “Takin Solutions” .
I find this appealing as by acting as a representative of a group, the
group also somehow engages with the activity through the partitioning
and different carried_out_by references.
Otherwise, what about motivated_by? The motivation for performing the
work is really the **ongoing** membership in Takin, rather than the
mere existence of it, but … we know where that leads (cough cough) … so …
<modeling> a Activity ;
label “modeling activity carried out by George, as a member of Takin> ;
carried_out_by <george> ;
motivated_by <takin> .
It could be motivated by the joining of George to Takin, but that
seems less accurate.
Rob
*From: *Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of George
Bruseker <[email protected]>
*Date: *Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:35 AM
*To: *Pierre Choffé <[email protected]>
*Cc: *crm-sig <[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Actor carrying out an action at
the Behest of Another
Hi Pierre,
Thanks a lot for your thoughts.
I agree your proposal sounds like a viable solution to my use case.
The idea is not exactly like the sub-activity for breaking down role
(which DOREMUS did so well and which Linked.Art adopts as a principle)
but, rather that there is a new kind of activity which is
'representing' motivated by these two new properties. So normally I
just use p14 (no change so people = happy) and, just in case the
activity was motivated by the fact that I am representing somebody
(which indeed can be thought of as a separate activity), then I also
instantiate a new event and link it as you mention to the actor
through p14, to the main event through 'in the frame of' and link the
representing event to the group represented by the new property 'on
the behest of'. Then perhaps 'in the frame of' could be a
specialisation of p17 motivated by and 'was conducted on the behest
of' ... don't find a super property for that. It seems like a
plausible solution, I guess people wouldn't be very happy for it to
appear in CRMbase, but perhaps in CRMSoc.
I think the alternative of a .1 style property added to p14 is
something to be considered as well, because it seems like
ontologically it might be more coherent with people's
conceptualisation of the situation. I mean to say that it seems like
the .1 for in the role of property answers the kind of question which
is 'in what way' or 'under what capacity' did so and so do x. Oh, she
was responding AS a doctor, he was doing that AS an actor. So I find
an analogy here with that kind of construction. George did X AS
representative of Y; George did X as actor of kind Q.
Anyhow they both seem viable solutions, but both require additions to
the model. Can anybody see an intuitive way to model this without
additions?
Best,
George
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 7:41 PM Pierre Choffé <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Image removed by sender.
Hi George, hi all,
What about a "Representation Activity", subclass of E7 Activity,
that would be "carried out" by the Actor "representing" a Group
"in the frame of" another activity ?
Let's say George has 2 activities A1 and A2. Only A2 is carried
out as some sort of representation activity.
(George) "carried out" (A1) that resulted in (Something).
(George) "carried out" (A2) that resulted in (Something Else).
(George) "carried out" (Representation Activity) "in the frame of"
(A2)
(Representation Activity) "was conducted on behest of" (Group)
Does this capture the semantic of George carrying out an activity
as representative of Takin.Solutions ? This would be a light
solution which would just require to create a specific event and
two associated properties.
All the very best to you and all at CRM-SIG,
Pierre
On Tue, Apr 14th, 2020 at 5:47 PM, George Bruseker
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear all,
Here is a minor modelling issue which may or may not find your
interest in these times of quarantine. The modelling conundrum
is the following:
Sometimes in an activity, the activity is carried out by a
named individual but it is carried out on the behest of an
organization or someone acts in their capacity as the
representative of an organization.
Examples:
The Conceptual Modelling (E7) is carried out by George
Bruseker (E21) as representative of Takin.Solutions (E74)
The Diplomatic Reception (E7) is carried out by Ms. Diplomat
(E21) as representative of the Canadian Government
Ie: we want to say that at this time (when E7 occurred) this
actor (E21) did the action (p14) but also to qualify this
participation not through a role but to say that this person
was not acting as an individual but at the time was employed
by, working for, acting on the behest of some other entity E74.
One the one hand you could say, just document that the actor
was a member of some group through a join and leave event and
then you could calculate that they were a member of that group
at the time of the event. I think this doesn't work because a)
it is obtuse and b) it cannot be inferred that because I am a
member of some group at some time that the actions I take in
that time span are then me acting on behalf of that group.
Obviously, I guess.
So next potential solution. I think that p14.1 in the role of,
won't cut it, because that would only point to a role
'diplomat' 'conceptual modeller' whatever. This does not
create the relation to the instance of E39 actor which the E21
acts on behalf of/under the auspices of.
You can't just say that the E21 p107i is current or former
member of E74 because a) acting on behalf of someone else
doesn't necessarily imply membership in a group together and
b) this will not say that the person _at that time_ was acting
on behalf of / in relation to the other Actor anyway (see above).
A classic solution might be to create a one person E74 group
called 'representative of x organization on this night' and
then put the person in that group and then have the group
carry out the action. While logically it sounds like a
solution (and doesn't call for new additions to the model) but
it would be counterintuitive to a user, creating entities that
the user wouldn't imagine to think of or use.
Another option would be to do event partioning and then say
that the person participated in a sub activity in which they
were 'representing' x. I also think this creates a lot. of
complication and is not self explanatory as a modelling
solution (half the time you should look for actors carrying
out the activity under p14 and half the time under a sub event
of E7 with a special type).
So I don't find any of my imagined solutions very
satisfactory. What do other people think? Does anyone have a
solution that I haven't thought of with existing CRM
mechanics? If there isn't a pre-existing solution, do you
ideas on how to cover this scenario?
I encounter it relatively frequently.
One solution I could imagine would be a new .1 type property
off the PC14 class that would be something like 'as
representative of'. I am not wedded to such a solution, but I
suggest it because I think it might link to a more general
issue that it is difficult to express 'manner' in a
grammatical sense with CRM and somehow the .1 properties aid
with this important kind of construct.
Anyhow just food for thought.
Best,
George
*CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know
the content is safe.*
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
------------------------------------
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
