I agree with Francesco -- anywhere we don't have complete knowledge of the activities there will be utility to such a shortcut, when there is an intended outcome, but one which is not certain.
An archeological expedition -- resulted in outcome of type "came home empty handed" / "found something" Commission of an artwork -- resulted in outcome of type "artist ran off with the money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what was wanted" / ... Exhibition planning -- resulted in outcome of type "exhibition" / "no exhibition" / "revised exhibition" / ... Conservation of object -- resulted in outcome of type "destroyed object by mistake" / "no change" / "repaired damage" / ... etc. Rob On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:56 PM George Bruseker <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rob / Martin, > > Yes, Rob provides a nice instance example. > > Again, I just want to explore whether such a property has applications > beyond this scope. Perhaps it isn't needed but if we look at more examples > maybe a generalization will arise. > > Best, > > George > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 7:53 PM Robert Sanderson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Let me try and explain my understanding >> >> There are events, such as the auction of a specific lot, in which the >> objects in the lot are offered for sale. >> >> That event might result in the transfer of ownership of the objects in >> the lot from their current owner to the new owner, but they might not -- >> there might be no bidders, the reserve price might not be met, etc. At >> which point there is no transfer of ownership at all, and hence we should >> not create an E8 Acquisition because there was no change in ownership. >> >> So ... we have established that the auction of the lot is not the same >> entity as the E8 acquisition, which might be triggered by the auction of >> lot. Let's just call it an E7 Activity. >> >> Now, lets assume that we do not know anything at all about that >> Acquisition. So, much like the other *_of_type properties, we don't want to >> instantiate an E8 which was triggered by the E7 but with no properties, but >> instead to just say that the E7 resulted in an activity of_type Sale, or >> of_type Return, or of_type Unknown, or of_type Bought In. >> >> Thus: >> >> <auction_of_lot1> a E7_Activity ; >> carried_out_by <auction house> ; >> triggered_activity_of_type <bought-in> . >> >> <bought-in> a E55_Type . >> >> Something like that? >> >> Rob >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:28 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi George, >>> >>> Please explain in more detail: >>> >>> On 1/6/2022 1:54 PM, George Bruseker wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> What sort of event would "end in a sale", and why this event is not a >>> sale itself, or why the sale itself is not an event in its own right. Can >>> you cite an instance? Since I have happened to make full analysis of >>> auction house actions and internet sales offers, I would need more details. >>> >>> I used a model which simply separates the sales offer from the legal >>> transaction. The sale itself is not an outcome in this model, but motivated >>> by the offer. Note that sales may be done without offer. Requests for sales >>> are also different communications. >>> >>> I did not see a need to describe "outcome" in general terms. >>> >>> Further, could you better explain what you mean by "outcome" other than >>> common language? Could you give a semantic definition, that would separate >>> expextations from necessities, prerequisites and deterministic behaviour >>> etc. ? >>> >>> I seriuosly do not understand that "outcome" has an ontological nature. >>> For the time being I recognize it as a word of a language. >>> >>> >>> The cheap and cheerful solution would just be to put this as a p2 has >>> type... the typical solution. >>> >>> I principally disagree that cheap is cheerful. This is not a CRM >>> Principle. P2 has type has never been a cheap solution. It is very precisly >>> described as specialization without adding properties. I honestly do not >>> understand what the type would pertain to, once it may not characterize the >>> event, but an event to follow? >>> >>> >>> It would nice to be more accurate though since the categorization isn't >>> of the event itself but of its typical outcome. >>> >>> Exactly, if I would understand he sense of "outcome", I could follow you >>> better. Note, that words and senses are different, and CRM is not modelling >>> English language. >>> >>> 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). >>> >>> Please provide instances. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Still, you use the term "outcome", without explaining it, isn't it? I >>> honestly do not regard it as self-evident, and I had already written that >>> in previous messages. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> George >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 1, 2022 at 7:28 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig < >>> [email protected]> 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 < >>>> [email protected]> 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 >>>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >>>>> > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >>>>> > <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 >>>>> > <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Crm-sig mailing >>>> [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 >>>> [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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------ >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> -- >> Rob Sanderson >> Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata >> Yale University >> > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
