Dear Francesco,

Your arguments well taken, I repeat:

The speech act in CRM is identical to the sale, (Acquisition), if at all the speech act has a legal character, and if at all the sale is executed via speech act, and not via e-commerce or whatsoever.

The negotiation has no deterministic connection with the sales, hence, ontologically, it is independent. t is also legally different.

Therefore, the sales can be regarded as continuation of the offer. What if someone offers an object that is not his?, this happens.

I maintain that "outcome" is too narrow for reality.

Cheers,

Martin

On 1/6/2022 2:47 PM, Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig wrote:

Dear George, Martin,

Let's take an exemple: there is a negotiation that results in a sale, i.e. a change of ownership of some physical object.

The negotiation belongs to the physical, human space: it is an event of type negotiation. It can result, or not, in a speech act changing the ownership of the physical object. The new ownership starting then is the outcome of the negotiation event and it belongs to the social space (CRMsoc). The speech act is inbetween, it is a social event (change in connotation of a physical object in the representations of humans) but has as setting a physical human event. The speech act, as social event, could have the type 'change of ownership'. And the result is, as said, a new social situation, a new property situation of the physical object.

It seems therefore reasonable, as George proposes since the beginning, to add to the event a 'has outcome' property (or a similar one) as a shortcut linking to the type of the event that is the outcome of, or results from the first, trigger' event, a speech act in the case of an object's sale but it could be —in the physical, human world— a birth, in the case of a 'one-night stand', or a death in the case of an attempted assassination.

I am therefore in favour of introducing a property of this type, which we have been using for years, in a similar form, in the symogih.org project because often in history we know the 'trigger' event but only the type of the outcome.

Best wishes

Francesco


Le 06.01.22 à 12:54, George Bruseker via Crm-sig a écrit :
Hi Martin,

So the context for this is that there are provenance events being described and there is categorical knowledge derivable from the source material which a researcher might want to attribute to the event on what generally happened, the event ended in a sale, didn't end in a sale etc.

The cheap and cheerful solution would just be to put this as a p2 has type... the typical solution.

It would nice to be more accurate though since the categorization isn't of the event itself but of its typical outcome. So the case that comes up here is that provenance researchers want to classify the outcomes of an event by type regardless of their knowledge of the specifics of what went on in that event (because the source material may simply not allow them to know).

In this context, as type the outcome value will be used for categorization, how many events resulted in 'sale' how many in 'not sale'.

In a real query scenario it would be asking questions like how many events of such and such a type had what kinds of outcome. Or maybe how many events with such and such a general purpose had such and such a general outcome. And then filter by time, space, people etc.

It would be very interesting to seek other examples of general outcome recording for events in other contexts and see if this is a generally useful property to define.

Best,

George

On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 7:28 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:

    In continuation:

    "Sold", "completed", "incomplete" are very specific things.
    Objects are offered for sale, which does not imply anything more
    than a sort of publication. Actual purchase is a reaction on the
    offer.  Purchase may happen without offer. Actual change of
    ownership is modeled in the CRM. The type of the event itself
    implies per default completion, such as production, modification
    etc.

    The interesting case are processes which are known to be
    abandoned, but what that means needs further investigation: How
    much of action has been done and left historical traces?

    Processes which have not been finished during recording time are
    another case. This is notoriously difficult, and resembles the
    "current" discussions. We may need an "still ongoing", which
    should be harmonized with the time-spans.

    Unknown parameters of an event, such as purchase from unknown to
    unknown, do not need a n "outcome" property, but are just a
    specific event an object has experienced.

    Isn't it?

    Other kinds of "outcomes" can be modifications, obligations,
    receiving knowledge of, transfer of properties between
    "input-output" etc. May be it is time to study if we can create a
    relatively comprehensive list. Some events may only leave memory
    as only persistent thing, e.g. performances.

    To be discussed!😁

    Best,

    Martin

    On 12/31/2021 8:29 PM, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig wrote:
    Dear All,

    The missing property of outcome is so far deliberate in the CRM,
    because we could not identify a general case. In contrast, there
    are models with input-output semantics, but this is a very small
    subset.

    As in all such cases, we first need a collection of examples,
    and study if there exist common semantics, or if it splits in a
    set of more specific cases. I'd expect about 5 kinds of
    outcomes. If you give me the time, I can present in the next
    meeting some.

    All the best,

    Martin


    On 12/20/2021 6:45 PM, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
    Hi Thanasi,

    The proposal creates a consistent way of doing the 'type of'
    version of a property that relates one particular to another
    particular.

    So  each individual property:
    https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1
    has its typed version like:
    https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P21-had-general-purpose/version-7.1.1

    Right?

    But I contend there IS NO particular property in regular CRM
    that expresses the semantics I indicate above (therefore the
    proposal cannot generate its typed version). P21 DOES NOT
    express the semantics I need (hence also not P23).

    O13 triggers more or less does. in particular. But I need the
    generalization. Triggered an outcome of type.

    Anyhow, not sure if anyone else needs this, but very common in
    my data.

    Cheers,
    G

    On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 4:35 PM Athanasios Velios
    <thana...@softicon.co.uk> wrote:

        Following Athina's response and in relation to the question
        about the
        extant properties, I guess the "type of type" can be
        replicated with
        thesaurus related properties (e.g. P127 has broader term).
        I would
        consider the instances of E55 Type slightly differently to
        normal
        instances and not extent the idea to them.

        T.

        On 14/12/2021 19:42, George Bruseker wrote:
        > Hi Thanasi,
        >
        > Yes that's true. Good reminder. That might be a solution
        but then we
        > would need the particular property for expressing that
        two events are
        > causally connected. I avoided to put it in the last email
        so as not to
        > stir up to many semantic teapots. But obviously to have
        the general
        > property we should have the particular property. So we
        have for example
        > we have the particular properties:
        >
        >
        https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1

        >
        <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P20-had-specific-purpose/version-7.1.1>
        > and
        >
        https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P21-had-general-purpose/version-7.1.1

        >
        <https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/P21-had-general-purpose/version-7.1.1>
        >
        > so the analogy to this in my situation is probably
        >
        > O13 triggers (is triggered by)
        >
        https://cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/sites/default/files/CRMsci%20v.1.4.pdf

        >
        <https://cidoc-crm.org/crmsci/sites/default/files/CRMsci%20v.1.4.pdf>
        > and we need the analogy of p21 to make the model complete....
        >
        > On another note out of curiosity, in the extension where
        every property
        > has a 'type of' property what happens with the extant
        'type of'
        > properties? I assume there isn't any has general purpose
        of type
        > property... or is there?
        >
        > Cheers
        >
        > G
        >
        > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 9:20 PM Athanasios Velios via
        Crm-sig
        > <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
        >
        >     Hi George, all,
        >
        >     As part of Linked Conservation Data (and with the
        help of Carlo, Martin
        >     and Steve) we proposed the idea of Typed Properties
        which derive from
        >     current CRM properties and always have E55 Type as range.
        >
        >     E.g. "bears feature" → "bears feature of type" so
        that one can describe
        >     the type of something without specifying the
        individual. It is very
        >     economical in conservation where we want to avoid
        describing
        >     hundreds of
        >     individuals of similar types.
        >
        >     We are still baking the exact impact of such a
        reduction from
        >     individuals to Types. One issue in RDFS is the
        multitude of new
        >     properties. There seems to be a simple implementation
        in OWL with
        >     property paths. Not an immediate solution but a flag
        for more to come.
        >
        >     All the best,
        >
        >     Thanasis
        >
        >     On 14/12/2021 15:49, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
        >      > Hi all,
        >      >
        >      > I have situations in which I have events where the
        data curators
        >      > describe events for which they have generic
        knowledge of the
        >     outcome:
        >      > sold, completed, incomplete, this sort of thing.
        So there is
        >     knowledge
        >      > but it is not knowledge of the particular next
        event but of a
        >     general
        >      > kind of outcome.
        >      >
        >      > We have properties like: P21 had general purpose
        (was purpose of)
        >     which
        >      > is very useful for when the data curator only has
        generic knowledge
        >      > knowledge and not particular knowledge regarding
        purpose. This
        >     seems a
        >      > parallel to this case.
        >      >
        >      > Anybody else have this case and have an interest
        in a property
        >     like 'had
        >      > general outcome' or 'had outcome of type' that
        goes from Event to a
        >      > Type? Or, better yet if possible, a solution that
        doesn't involve
        >     a new
        >      > property but that does meet this semantic need
        without too many
        >     contortions?
        >      >
        >      > Best,
        >      >
        >      > George
        >      >
        >      > _______________________________________________
        >      > Crm-sig mailing list
        >      > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
        >      > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
        >     <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
        >      >
        >  _______________________________________________
        >     Crm-sig mailing list
        > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>
        > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
        >     <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
        >


    _______________________________________________
    Crm-sig mailing list
    Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
    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:mar...@ics.forth.gr Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

    _______________________________________________
    Crm-sig mailing list
    Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
    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:mar...@ics.forth.gr Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

    _______________________________________________
    Crm-sig mailing list
    Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
    http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig


_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
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:mar...@ics.forth.gr Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Reply via email to