Dear Francesco,
I support very much your arguments. I currently see at least 5 distinct
cases, I'll summarize the next days.
Just a quick remark: Please do not use the label "general" in this
sense: "has_general_activity <more general activity>**.", because we
have conflicting interpretations, and this is an open issue.
Use "has wider activity" or "extended activity" or so.
Chrysoula will assign an ISSUE number.
All the best,
Martin
On 4/23/2020 1:28 AM, Francesco Beretta wrote:
Dear George, Martin, Rob, all
Thank you for this very interesting and relevant discussion which
definitely belongs to CRMsoc. I'd kindly ask those who can, to create
an issue in the CRMsoc documentation, with these emails, in order to
make this discussion more accessible. Also, in my opinion, this rich
discussion shows the limits of a mailing list: it would be very useful
to split and regroup the different sub-questions and answers within
different threads (e.g in a forum) and it takes a lot of time to read
and reorder all the points of view — in the own mind or on 'paper'. In
the end, only a few people will have the time and the motivation of
doing this, while the interest of the issue would deserve discussion
by a wider community.
This said, I think three different levels appear and are partly mixed
up: a phenomenal, an epistemological and a technical. And this makes
the issue even more difficult to solve, at least to the extent that
these different levels are not differentiated.
On the phenomenal level the question is: what is the modelled
phenomenon ? A personal, time-related quality or skill of the person
in charge of the activity ? or the fact that he/she acts as
representative of an institution, as a more general activity ? or with
a specific mission in this case ? or because he/she is employed by an
organization and carries out that activity within that framework ? It
seems difficult to have a unique way of modelling all these different
possible aspects of reality.
Also, the perception of them depends on the point of view of the
observer, as social sciences teach us. Even in natural science,
objectivity is a matter of convention and the model of reality is only
one of the possible representations of it, not yet falsified. This is
even more true for social phenomena, even if one limits oneself to the
level of pure information. Choosing between phases, time-limited
qualities of entities or events to model these social facts is
therefore as much the result of epistemological choices as it is the
result of the comtemplation of the phenomenal reality as such.
Definitely an issue for CRMsoc where the epistemological approach
should be wider then the one in CMRbase. Assuming that the modelled
domain is the one of /social/ states of affairs.
And finally there is the techical issue. We try to model this complex
reality, and all these different perspectives, with simple, limited
constructs like (RDFS) classes and properties, then —given the
richness of the phenomena— we are obliged to introduce additional
constructs, such as properties of properties (14.1 etc.), property
classes (PC) or by splitting events in sub-events through
partitioning, which are not really specified in the standard, or at
least not in a very visible way for the community.
During the 12 years of the symogih.org experience
<http://symogih.org/?q=type-of-knowledge-unit-classes-tree> we had
long discussions on this issue (without beeing able to really answer
it) : knowing that a person is involved in an event and has thus a
/role/ in it, are the aforementioned phenomena characteristic of the
person, of the role, or of both in the context of that event ? the
answer depends on the modelled phenomenon and on the point of view of
the data producer.
Technically speaking one could express this in (at least) two ways:
1.
<modeling> a Activity ;
label “modeling activity carried out by George, as a member of
Takin> ;
carried_out_by _[actor-with-contextual-quality]*.
_[actor-with-contextual-quality] has_actor <george> ;
has_quality <time related skill>**.
[or]
has_motivation <specific mission for this activity>**.
[or]
has_general_activity <more general activity>**.
* blank node
** the corresponding temporal entities, with own properties or (if
shortcuts and simplifications) the corresponding types
2.
<modeling> a Activity ;
label “modeling activity carried out by George, as a member of
Takin> ;
carried_out_by* <george>.
carried_out_by* with_the_quality** <time related skill>.
[or]
carried_out_by* with_the_motivation** <specific mission for this
activity>.
[or]
carried_out_by* in_the_contex_of_general_activity** <more general
activity>.
* as PC or reified property (I do not use here the usual statement
construct for reified properties to keep it readable)
** as property of property
Solution 1. focuses on the quality or mission of the actor but raises
the question of the identity of the blank node, as stated in the
previous discussion on this list. A blank node has not a specific
identity but how are then defined the related properties ?
This approch expresses in a suitable manner the social quality
inherent to the actor, whether perceived or factual, occurring mainly
during the activity. It is therefore nearer to reality or, at least,
our discourse about reality.
Solution 2. emphasizes the importance of the actor's role in the
context of the action, qualifies and clarifies it. It adopts an
existing construct (statement reification) but calls for a clearer
definition in CRM and its model family of the meaning of 'properties
of properties' and their use. And also: in fact the quality or mission
does not belong to the role, but to the actor, so this kind of
modelling is somewhat artificial.
Both solutions seem to work technically but reveal the difficulty of
expressing a complex reality and specific points of view with simple
constructs.
Best wishes
Francesco
---
Dr. habil. Francesco Beretta
Chargé de recherche au CNRS,
Responsable du Pôle histoire numérique,
Laboratoire de recherche historique Rhône-Alpes
LARHRA UMR CNRS 5190,
MSH LSE,
14, Avenue Berthelot
69363 LYON CEDEX 07
+ 33 (0)6 51 84 48 84
Le Pôle histoire numérique
<http://larhra.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/pole-histoire-numerique> du LARHRA
Le projet dataforhistory.org <http://dataforhistory.org/> – Ontology
Management Environment OntoME <http://ontome.dataforhistory.org/>
Le projet symogih.org <http://symogih.org/>– SPARQL endpoint
<http://symogih.org/?q=rdf-publication>
Publications
<https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/search/index/?qa[auth_t][]=Francesco+Beretta&sort=producedDate_tdate+desc>
-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet : Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Actor carrying out an action at
the Behest of Another
Date : Wed, 22 Apr 2020 22:04:09 +0300
De : Martin Doerr <[email protected]>
Pour : George Bruseker <[email protected]>
Copie à : crm-sig <[email protected]>
Dear All,
This may find your interest:
F. Steimann. On the representation of roles in object-oriented and
conceptual modelling.Data& Knowl-edge Engineering35(1): 83–106, 2000.
This is a back ground paper of the current CRMbase approach.
I found these, but have not yet read in detail:
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2205/paper25_ontocom4.pdf
and particularly
https://books.google.gr/books?id=n3cRDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=Ontology+of+delegation+of+action&source=bl&ots=_ozargCAze&sig=ACfU3U2aV028Cvm0Ts_64ieVHVcsmfQ51w&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjS2Lbf2_zoAhVFlFwKHchzAoIQ6AEwC3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Ontology%20of%20delegation%20of%20action&f=false
Social Ontology: Collective Intentionality and Group Agents
Εξώφυλλο
<https://books.google.gr/books?id=6ltpAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=el&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0>
Raimo Tuomela
<https://www.google.gr/search?hl=el&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Raimo+Tuomela%22>
Oxford University Press, 23 Αυγ 2013 - 320 σελίδες
<https://books.google.gr/books?id=6ltpAgAAQBAJ&dq=Ontology+of+delegation+of+action&hl=el&sitesec=reviews>
0 Κριτικές
<https://books.google.gr/books?id=6ltpAgAAQBAJ&dq=Ontology+of+delegation+of+action&hl=el&sitesec=reviews>
Social ontology, in its broadest sense, is the study of the nature of
social reality, including collective intentions and agency. The
starting point of Tuomela's account of collective intentionality is
the distinction between thinking and acting as a private person
("I-mode") versus as a "we-thinking" group member ("we-mode"). The
we-mode approach is based on social groups consisting of persons,
which may range from simple task groups consisting of a few persons to
corporations and even to political states. Tuomela extends the we-mode
notion to cover groups controlled by external authority. Thus, for
instance, cooperation and attitude formation are studied in cases
where the participants are governed "from above" as in many
corporations. The volume goes on to present a systematic philosophical
theory related to the collectivism-versus-individualism debate in the
social sciences. A weak version of collectivism (the "we-mode"
approach) depends on group-based collective intentionality. We-mode
collective intentionality is not individualistically reducible and is
needed to complement individualistic accounts in social scientific
theorizing. The we-mode approach is used in the book to account for
collective intention and action, cooperation, group attitudes, and
social practices and institutions, as well as group solidarity.
Tuomela establishes the first complete theory of group reasons (in the
sense of members' reasons for participation in group activities). The
book argues in terms of game-theoretical group-reasoning that the kind
of weak collectivism that the we-mode approach involves is both
conceptually and rational-functionally different from what an
individualistic approach ("pro-group I-mode" approach) entails.
--
------------------------------------
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
--
------------------------------------
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
