Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[George Bruseker via Crm-sig]

>
>
> Forgive me George for bringing up my original comment - it is entirely
> possible that I have not understood the problem.
>

V happy to discuss it.


>
> It seems to me that what is really missing is the connection between the
> event and the outcome. It seems that you are saying that it is a causal
> connection. Shortcutting that to the type of the outcome is exactly the
> process of Typed Properties (TPs) and negating that is the process of
> Negative Typed Properties (NTPs), both of which are still being baked.
> Adding TPs to CRM base is a bad idea in my view, as it is a specific
> solution for RDFS and it is not needed in other implementations.
>
> So maybe break down the problem to:
>
> 1) See if we need a new class for outcome
>

I argue that the outcome is an event (this being a possible sense of
outcome).


> 2) Define a causal property (which we have avoided so far)
>

o13 triggers basically does the trick


> 3) Finish the TPs and NTPs, which I hope will be done soon
>

that would mean applying them to CRMSci I guess


>
> Maybe discussing live at the SIG is easier.
>

Probably!

Cheers,

G


>
> All the best,
>
> Thanasis
>
> On 07/01/2022 10:08, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:
> > Hi Rob / Francesco / Martin,
> >
> > These are all nice examples that maybe we could dig into further, maybe
> > they display the 'senses of outcome' problem Martin is pointing to?
> >
> > An ontological problem that seems to come up in my mind as I try to
> > conceptualize this is do we mean
> >
> > 1) outcome of type in the sense of a shortcut for a real particular
> > event of a type (the particular event we do not know much about expect
> > that it was caused by the first event and has some type)
> >
> > 2) outcome of a type in the sense of a shortcut for a real particular
> > event that had particular properties (the particular event we do not
> > know much about expect that it produced something, showed something,
> > modified something and was caused by the first event)
> >
> > 3) outcome as an evaluation of achievement of an event (succeeds, fails)
> > - we only talk about one event and evaluate whether it achieves its goal
> >
> > These can all cause trouble.
> >
> > So for example the JFK Assassination:
> >
> > (E7) Shooting at JFK, (E69) JFK dies
> >
> > So if we choose to model these as two separate events (legitimate), then
> > Shooting of JFK had general purpose 'death' and we know in fact that the
> > shooting triggers the death of JFK (no bullets in JFK, no dead JFK that
> > day, the shooting caused the death).
> >
> > So the shortcut 'had outcome of type' could be 'death' just in case we
> > didn't know anything about the particular death event of JFK and didn't
> > want to instantiate it as a node.
> >
> > Shooting of JFK (E7) triggers Death of JFK (E69) has type "Death" (E55)
> >
> > So here it is that there is an event of type X that is shortcut.
> >
> > That would be sense 1.
> >
> > Sense 2 would be something like
> >
> > Shooting at JFK (E7) triggers Death of JFK (E69) kills JFK (E21)
> >
> > So here it would be the particular property of E69 to 'kill' an E21 that
> > would be shortcuted
> >
> > We could also have sense 3, 'had outcome of type' 'success'. As in, the
> > assassin had general purpose 'death' and the outcome was 'success'.
> >
> > How would this work in the other examples:
> >
> > An archeological expedition -- resulted in outcome of type "came
> > home empty handed" / "found something"
> >
> >
> > So we have an initial event
> >
> > Archeological Expedition (E7) has general purpose "Find Something" (E55)
> > Archeological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type "Found Something" (E55)
> >
> > And then would the shortcut mean:
> >
> > a) Archeological Expedition (E7) triggered Dig Activity (A1) has type
> > Found Something (E55)
> >
> > or
> >
> > b) Archeological Expedition (E7) triggered Dig Activity (A1)
> > encountered Object (E22)
> >
> > (so here because E22 is 'something', the shortcut is true... that would
> > seem more like a rule than a property)
> > or
> >
> > c) Archeological Expedition (E7) had purpose Find Something (E55)
> > Archeological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type Found Something (E55)
> >
> > So here it wouldn't imply a pass through to another event but would
> > evaluate this event in itself.
> >
> >
> > Commission of an artwork -- resulted in outcome of type "artist ran
> > off with the money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist
> > produced what was wanted" / ...
> >
> >
> > Commission of Artwork (E7) had general purpose 'production of artwork'
> > Commission of Artwork (E7) had outcome of type "artist ran off with the
> > money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what was
> > wanted"
> >
> > And then would these shortcuts mean:
> >
> > a) Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Production (E12) has
> > type "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what was
> > wanted" (E55)
> >
> > or
> 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

Forgive me George for bringing up my original comment - it is entirely 
possible that I have not understood the problem.


It seems to me that what is really missing is the connection between the 
event and the outcome. It seems that you are saying that it is a causal 
connection. Shortcutting that to the type of the outcome is exactly the 
process of Typed Properties (TPs) and negating that is the process of 
Negative Typed Properties (NTPs), both of which are still being baked. 
Adding TPs to CRM base is a bad idea in my view, as it is a specific 
solution for RDFS and it is not needed in other implementations.


So maybe break down the problem to:

1) See if we need a new class for outcome
2) Define a causal property (which we have avoided so far)
3) Finish the TPs and NTPs, which I hope will be done soon

Maybe discussing live at the SIG is easier.

All the best,

Thanasis

On 07/01/2022 10:08, George Bruseker via Crm-sig wrote:

Hi Rob / Francesco / Martin,

These are all nice examples that maybe we could dig into further, maybe 
they display the 'senses of outcome' problem Martin is pointing to?


An ontological problem that seems to come up in my mind as I try to 
conceptualize this is do we mean


1) outcome of type in the sense of a shortcut for a real particular 
event of a type (the particular event we do not know much about expect 
that it was caused by the first event and has some type)


2) outcome of a type in the sense of a shortcut for a real particular 
event that had particular properties (the particular event we do not 
know much about expect that it produced something, showed something, 
modified something and was caused by the first event)


3) outcome as an evaluation of achievement of an event (succeeds, fails) 
- we only talk about one event and evaluate whether it achieves its goal


These can all cause trouble.

So for example the JFK Assassination:

(E7) Shooting at JFK, (E69) JFK dies

So if we choose to model these as two separate events (legitimate), then 
Shooting of JFK had general purpose 'death' and we know in fact that the 
shooting triggers the death of JFK (no bullets in JFK, no dead JFK that 
day, the shooting caused the death).


So the shortcut 'had outcome of type' could be 'death' just in case we 
didn't know anything about the particular death event of JFK and didn't 
want to instantiate it as a node.


Shooting of JFK (E7) triggers Death of JFK (E69) has type "Death" (E55)

So here it is that there is an event of type X that is shortcut.

That would be sense 1.

Sense 2 would be something like

Shooting at JFK (E7) triggers Death of JFK (E69) kills JFK (E21)

So here it would be the particular property of E69 to 'kill' an E21 that 
would be shortcuted


We could also have sense 3, 'had outcome of type' 'success'. As in, the 
assassin had general purpose 'death' and the outcome was 'success'.


How would this work in the other examples:

An archeological expedition -- resulted in outcome of type "came
home empty handed" / "found something"


So we have an initial event

Archeological Expedition (E7) has general purpose "Find Something" (E55)
Archeological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type "Found Something" (E55)

And then would the shortcut mean:

a) Archeological Expedition (E7) triggered Dig Activity (A1) has type 
Found Something (E55)


or

b) Archeological Expedition (E7) triggered Dig Activity (A1) 
encountered Object (E22)


(so here because E22 is 'something', the shortcut is true... that would 
seem more like a rule than a property)

or

c) Archeological Expedition (E7) had purpose Find Something (E55)
Archeological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type Found Something (E55)

So here it wouldn't imply a pass through to another event but would 
evaluate this event in itself.



Commission of an artwork -- resulted in outcome of type "artist ran
off with the money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist
produced what was wanted" / ...


Commission of Artwork (E7) had general purpose 'production of artwork'
Commission of Artwork (E7) had outcome of type "artist ran off with the 
money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what was 
wanted"


And then would these shortcuts mean:

a) Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Production (E12) has 
type "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what was 
wanted" (E55)


or

Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Activity (E7) has type "artist ran 
off with the money" (E55)


So in the above cases it either shortcuts an E12 or an E7 which we don't 
have any details about but for which we would have classificatory terms 
like 'desired production', 'undesired production' OR 'theft/loss' or 
something like this. As per Martin's mail on types it falls to the 
vocabulary to tell us which CRM event type is implied...


or

b) Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Production (E12) produced Some 
Object (E22)


(so here because E22 is 'something', the shortcut is true... 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Great analysis!

I'll continue to elaborate this further.

Wish you all a good start in 2022!

Martin

On 1/7/2022 12:08 PM, George Bruseker wrote:

Hi Rob / Francesco / Martin,

These are all nice examples that maybe we could dig into 
further, maybe they display the 'senses of outcome' problem Martin is 
pointing to?


An ontological problem that seems to come up in my mind as I try to 
conceptualize this is do we mean


1) outcome of type in the sense of a shortcut for a real particular 
event of a type (the particular event we do not know much about expect 
that it was caused by the first event and has some type)


2) outcome of a type in the sense of a shortcut for a real particular 
event that had particular properties (the particular event we do not 
know much about expect that it produced something, showed something, 
modified something and was caused by the first event)


3) outcome as an evaluation of achievement of an event (succeeds, 
fails) - we only talk about one event and evaluate whether it achieves 
its goal


These can all cause trouble.

So for example the JFK Assassination:

(E7) Shooting at JFK, (E69) JFK dies

So if we choose to model these as two separate events (legitimate), 
then Shooting of JFK had general purpose 'death' and we know in fact 
that the shooting triggers the death of JFK (no bullets in JFK, no 
dead JFK that day, the shooting caused the death).


So the shortcut 'had outcome of type' could be 'death' just in case we 
didn't know anything about the particular death event of JFK and 
didn't want to instantiate it as a node.


Shooting of JFK (E7) triggers Death of JFK (E69) has type "Death" (E55)

So here it is that there is an event of type X that is shortcut.

That would be sense 1.

Sense 2 would be something like

Shooting at JFK (E7) triggers Death of JFK (E69) kills JFK (E21)

So here it would be the particular property of E69 to 'kill' an E21 
that would be shortcuted


We could also have sense 3, 'had outcome of type' 'success'. As in, 
the assassin had general purpose 'death' and the outcome was 'success'.


How would this work in the other examples:

An archeological expedition -- resulted in outcome of type "came
home empty handed" / "found something"


So we have an initial event

Archeological Expedition (E7) has general purpose "Find Something" (E55)
Archeological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type "Found Something" (E55)

And then would the shortcut mean:

a) Archeological Expedition (E7) triggered Dig Activity (A1) has type 
Found Something (E55)


or

b) Archeological Expedition (E7) triggered Dig Activity (A1) 
encountered Object (E22)


(so here because E22 is 'something', the shortcut is true... that 
would seem more like a rule than a property)

or

c) Archeological Expedition (E7) had purpose Find Something (E55)
Archeological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type Found Something (E55)

So here it wouldn't imply a pass through to another event but would 
evaluate this event in itself.



Commission of an artwork -- resulted in outcome of type "artist
ran off with the money" / "artist produced something else" /
"artist produced what was wanted" / ...


Commission of Artwork (E7) had general purpose 'production of artwork'
Commission of Artwork (E7) had outcome of type "artist ran off with 
the money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what 
was wanted"


And then would these shortcuts mean:

a) Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Production (E12) has 
type "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what was 
wanted" (E55)


or

Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Activity (E7) has type "artist 
ran off with the money" (E55)


So in the above cases it either shortcuts an E12 or an E7 which we 
don't have any details about but for which we would have 
classificatory terms like 'desired production', 'undesired production' 
OR 'theft/loss' or something like this. As per Martin's mail on types 
it falls to the vocabulary to tell us which CRM event type is implied...


or

b) Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Production (E12) produced Some 
Object (E22)


(so here because E22 is 'something', the shortcut is true... that 
would seem more like a rule than a property)
But if we do this then we would have to put the 'desired production' 
or 'undesired production' categories on the E22 and the non production 
/ non created thing would not be expressible.


or

c) Commission of Artwork (E7) had purpose "Build Something" (E55)
Archaological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type "Built that 
Something" (E55)


This above case however seems like it would be better covered by the 
Plans modelling since what makes something meet or not meet a 
criterion is complicated...?


Exhibition planning -- resulted in outcome of type "exhibition" /
"no exhibition" / "revised exhibition" / ...



Exhibition Planning (E7) has general purpose "Run Exhibition" (E55)
Exhibition Planning (E7) had outcome of type 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Dear Francesco,

Please let us not confuse everything. The CRM is in no ways grounded in 
physics. It is grounded in the scholarly views of museum curators and a 
set of other disciplines dealing with historical facts of the past in 
careful collaborations over 25 years. Please study the history of the 
CRM, beginning from the Smithsonian in Washington. The CRM is compatible 
with GIS systems, physics, biology and othersciences, but does not 
describe their theories, but exclusively particular facts of the past. 
It includes social constructs already, and no no ways excludes social 
disciplines.


The only real bias of the CRM is purely technological and inevitable: 
Information integration via machines based on binary logic, as a means 
to link context-free identifiable individuals from human provided data, 
which form a small but important subset of historical data, which the a 
collaborative empirical result of the work of the CRM-SIG. This 
determines the modelling principles of the CRM.


If you introduce other functions or principles of modeling, we have 
first to understand their new epistemic function in the scientific 
discourse, and understand if and how binary logic based machines etc, 
may be able to process them epistemically correctly for the intended 
purpose. If you introduce other functions or principles of modeling, the 
model will necessarily be different from the CRM itself and possibly 
incompatible.


This *cannot* be discussed vi a e-mail exchange, it is too complex. Any 
such attempt would increase the already existing confusion of epistemic 
and  technological insights and necessities. We have to organize vitual 
face-to-face meetings for that purpose.


My previous messages where *solely* about the word "outcome" and its 
polysemy. I perfectly understand the word. I only tried to make the CRM 
audience aware of the ontological methodologic questions necessary to 
reveal the polysemy of this word and enable choosing the senses that can 
be modelled adequately. I also tried, without success, to make you aware 
of the extreme context dependency of any such word. If this has been 
misunderstood, we need to discuss this *face-to-face *with enough time. 
The necessary explanations and disambiguations definitely exceed my 
writing capacities.


Looking forward to a substantial face-to-face discussion and resolution 
of any misunderstanding,


Best wishes,

Martin

On 1/6/2022 9:03 PM, Francesco Beretta wrote:


Dear Martin, and (indirectly) Rob and George,

Thank you for your comments.

Le 06.01.22 à 18:13, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :

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 point is: why care at all about building CRMsoc if everything is 
already present in CRMbase? And, furthermore, are we sure that we have 
a well grounded foundational analysis of social facts in CRMbase? 
Especially as we know that it's grounded in the epistemic view of 
classical physic (I mean not quantic)?  Isn't this a somehow different 
domain of discourse from social life as such? And shouldn't we take 
car not to model a domain without taking into account the paradigms of 
the disciplines studying the domain under consideration, i.e. social 
life?




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 
 wrote:


In continuation:

"Sold", "completed", 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[George Bruseker via Crm-sig]

Hi Rob / Francesco / Martin,

These are all nice examples that maybe we could dig into further, maybe
they display the 'senses of outcome' problem Martin is pointing to?

An ontological problem that seems to come up in my mind as I try to
conceptualize this is do we mean

1) outcome of type in the sense of a shortcut for a real particular event
of a type (the particular event we do not know much about expect that it
was caused by the first event and has some type)

2) outcome of a type in the sense of a shortcut for a real particular event
that had particular properties (the particular event we do not know
much about expect that it produced something, showed something, modified
something and was caused by the first event)

3) outcome as an evaluation of achievement of an event (succeeds, fails) -
we only talk about one event and evaluate whether it achieves its goal

These can all cause trouble.

So for example the JFK Assassination:

(E7) Shooting at JFK, (E69) JFK dies

So if we choose to model these as two separate events (legitimate), then
Shooting of JFK had general purpose 'death' and we know in fact that the
shooting triggers the death of JFK (no bullets in JFK, no dead JFK that
day, the shooting caused the death).

So the shortcut 'had outcome of type' could be 'death' just in case we
didn't know anything about the particular death event of JFK and didn't
want to instantiate it as a node.

Shooting of JFK (E7) triggers Death of JFK (E69) has type "Death" (E55)

So here it is that there is an event of type X that is shortcut.

That would be sense 1.

Sense 2 would be something like

Shooting at JFK (E7) triggers Death of JFK (E69) kills JFK (E21)

So here it would be the particular property of E69 to 'kill' an E21 that
would be shortcuted

We could also have sense 3, 'had outcome of type' 'success'. As in, the
assassin had general purpose 'death' and the outcome was 'success'.

How would this work in the other examples:
>


> An archeological expedition -- resulted in outcome of type "came home
> empty handed" / "found something"
>

So we have an initial event

Archeological Expedition (E7) has general purpose "Find Something" (E55)
Archeological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type "Found Something" (E55)

And then would the shortcut mean:

a) Archeological Expedition (E7) triggered Dig Activity (A1) has type Found
Something (E55)

or

b) Archeological Expedition (E7) triggered Dig Activity (A1)
encountered Object (E22)

(so here because E22 is 'something', the shortcut is true... that would
seem more like a rule than a property)

or

c) Archeological Expedition (E7) had purpose Find Something (E55)
Archeological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type Found Something (E55)

So here it wouldn't imply a pass through to another event but would
evaluate this event in itself.


Commission of an artwork -- resulted in outcome of type "artist ran off
> with the money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what
> was wanted" / ...
>

Commission of Artwork (E7) had general purpose 'production of artwork'
Commission of Artwork (E7) had outcome of type "artist ran off with the
money" / "artist produced something else" / "artist produced what was
wanted"

And then would these shortcuts mean:

a) Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Production (E12) has type "artist
produced something else" / "artist produced what was wanted" (E55)

or

Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Activity (E7) has type "artist ran off
with the money" (E55)

So in the above cases it either shortcuts an E12 or an E7 which we don't
have any details about but for which we would have classificatory terms
like 'desired production', 'undesired production' OR 'theft/loss' or
something like this. As per Martin's mail on types it falls to the
vocabulary to tell us which CRM event type is implied...

or

b) Commission of Artwork (E7) triggered Production (E12) produced Some
Object (E22)

(so here because E22 is 'something', the shortcut is true... that would
seem more like a rule than a property)

But if we do this then we would have to put the 'desired production' or
'undesired production' categories on the E22 and the non production / non
created thing would not be expressible.

or

c) Commission of Artwork (E7) had purpose "Build Something" (E55)
Archaological Expedition (E7) had outcome of type "Built that Something"
(E55)

This above case however seems like it would be better covered by the Plans
modelling since what makes something meet or not meet a criterion is
complicated...?


> Exhibition planning -- resulted in outcome of type "exhibition" / "no
> exhibition" / "revised exhibition" / ...
>


Exhibition Planning (E7) has general purpose "Run Exhibition" (E55)
Exhibition Planning (E7) had outcome of type "exhibition" / "no exhibition"
/ "revised exhibition" (E55)

And then would the shortcut mean:

a) Exhibition Planning (E7) triggered Exhibition (E7) has type "Exhibition"
/ "Revised Exhibition" (E55)

it seems here we 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[George Bruseker via Crm-sig]

Hi Martin,

Quoting self, "in the idiom of CRM, I am proposing that this be restricted
to the concept of one event resulting in another event of a type.

E7 pxxx had outcome of type E55 (of an E5/7).

So I am looking for a CRM property that would be able to denote a similar
concept to the one that the English language term 'outcome' denotes when it
is uttered.""

Best,

George


On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:42 PM Martin Doerr  wrote:

> Sorry,
>
> I mean (Oxford Dictionary):
>
> "outcome
> noun [ C usually singular ]
> 
> uk
> /ˈaʊt.kʌm/ us
> /ˈaʊt.kʌm/
> C1
> a result 
> or effect 
> of an action
> ,
> situation
> ,
> etc.:
> It's too early to predict
>  the
> outcome of the meeting
> .
> Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples
> the result of something
> 
>
>- result His
>firing was a direct result of his refusal to follow the employment 
> policies.
>- effect The
>radiation leak has had a disastrous effect on the environment.
>- consequence
>Failure to
>do proper safety checks may have serious consequences.
>- outcome It's
>too early to predict the outcome of the meeting.
>- upshot The
>upshot of the discussions is that there will be no further redundancies.
>- end result The
>end result of these changes should be a more efficient system for dealing
>with complaints.
>
> What do you mean of all that? The fact that equivalent words exist in some
> other languages has nothing to do with definition.
>
> I hope this is comprehensible.
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 1/6/2022 8:21 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
>
> 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 
> 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 
>> 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:
>>>
>>>  a E7_Activity ;
>>>   carried_out_by  ;
>>>   triggered_activity_of_type  .
>>>
>>>  a E55_Type .
>>>
>>> Something like that?
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:28 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <
>>> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig]

Dear Martin, and (indirectly) Rob and George,

Thank you for your comments.

Le 06.01.22 à 18:13, Martin Doerr via Crm-sig a écrit :

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 point is: why care at all about building CRMsoc if everything is 
already present in CRMbase? And, furthermore, are we sure that we have a 
well grounded foundational analysis of social facts in CRMbase? 
Especially as we know that it's grounded in the epistemic view of 
classical physic (I mean not quantic)?  Isn't this a somehow different 
domain of discourse from social life as such? And shouldn't we take car 
not to model a domain without taking into account the paradigms of the 
disciplines studying the domain under consideration, i.e. social life?


A 'speech act' is the appellation by social philosophers of what I would 
call a social event from the perspective of social sciences. It can 
happen, of course, via a click on a website, and then it's the buyer 
moving the finger which is the physical,human event tht provides the 
setting of the acquisition speech act/social event. crm:E8 Acquisition 
is clearly a subclass of speech act/social event insofar as ownership is 
not a physical state but a social connotation added by some humans, 
collectively, to a physical thing. In the perspective of CRMsoc, the 
change in ownership, i.e. an acquisition is therefore a speech 
act/social event.





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


To come back to the specific topic, I used the example of negotiation 
not in a metaphysic sense but just as an example on a Saturday market. 
The crm:E7 Activity of type 'Negotiation about the price' of this 
sausage happens in time and space, but the change of ownership of the 
physical human made thing —once the price is set— happens just in human 
minds, and our there presents dogs of course still hope to receive a bit 
of the sausage but do not know, as non humans, what property means.


So, just for the sake of the example, and not 'deterministically' a 
negotiation can end in a sale or not. There are two 'events', the 
negociation and the sale. The type of the first event is 'negotiation' 
and (to use Rob's propery identifier) the 'triggered_activity_of_type' 
is 'acquisition' or 'non purchasing' as a E55_Type .


If we take a more physical event, an attempt of assassination of a 
minister, we could know who was trying the bring this activity to an 
end, and who was the target of the attack, but the 'oucome type' would 
be 'failed'.


-- Activity 'one' (of type 'one') /triggered/ (also a missing, useful 
property) Activity or event two (of type two).


-- [shortcut] Activity 'one' triggered activity/event of type two

The substance is in the causal sequence (as the content of the available 
information).


All the best

Francesco



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 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

Sorry,

I mean (Oxford Dictionary):

"outcome
noun [ C usually singular ] 


uk
/ˈaʊt.kʌm/ us
/ˈaʊt.kʌm/
C1
a result 
 or 
effect  
of an action 
, 
situation 
, etc.:
It's too early to predict 
 the 
outcome of the meeting 
.

Thesaurus: synonyms, antonyms, and examples

the result of something 



 * result His
   firing was a direct result of his refusal to follow the employment
   policies.
 * effect The
   radiation leak has had a disastrous effect on the environment.
 * consequence
   Failure
   to do proper safety checks may have serious consequences.
 * outcome It's
   too early to predict the outcome of the meeting.
 * upshot The
   upshot of the discussions is that there will be no further redundancies.
 * end result
   The end
   result of these changes should be a more efficient system for
   dealing with complaints.

What do you mean of all that? The fact that equivalent words exist in 
some other languages has nothing to do with definition.


I hope this is comprehensible.

Best,

Martin


On 1/6/2022 8:21 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:


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 
 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
 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:

 a E7_Activity ;
  carried_out_by  ;
  triggered_activity_of_type  .

 a E55_Type .

Something like that?

Rob


On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:28 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig
 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig]

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 
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 
> 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:
>>
>>  a E7_Activity ;
>>   carried_out_by  ;
>>   triggered_activity_of_type  .
>>
>>  a E55_Type .
>>
>> Something like that?
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:28 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <
>> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> 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).
>>>

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[George Bruseker via Crm-sig]

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  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:
>
>  a E7_Activity ;
>   carried_out_by  ;
>   triggered_activity_of_type  .
>
>  a E55_Type .
>
> Something like that?
>
> Rob
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:28 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <
> crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[George Bruseker via Crm-sig]

Dear Martin,

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 have a general E7 Activity which I use to capture instances which I use
as a container for many different provenance related activities. Every time
an activity (E7) that involves something like a transfer of custody
ownership offer of an object takes place, I create an instance of this
activity (the indivdual transfer etc is a part of the overall activity). So
the activity usually has a general purpose 'sale' for example... it's a
general human activity (E7) which involves some people and it involves a
purpose 'sale'. It is NOT THE SALE, but is an activity aiming towards such
a thing. We may or may not know of the next activity. Did the sale happen,
didn't it? Maybe we know, maybe we don't know. Maybe we know on the
particular level ... yes this sale  on feb 9, 2021 happened. Or, only
'yes some sort of sale happened', but not which particular sale.

As said before so much of this can be covered already, but this knowledge
of 'some kind of event' was caused by this event is not presently
expressible.

I don't really need help with the provenance modelling, I have that
covered. I am just looking for a way to more accurately represent an
outcome known at the categorial level (not some particular event but some
kind of event).



>
> 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.
>

This sounds good, but I'm not using that model and have the above situation
so in my case the need does arise.


>
> 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.
>

This is very advanced for me. 'Outcome' is an English language word (which
I assumed we use as our lingua franca in CRM discussions). Looking it up I
find, "the result or effect of an action, situation, or event."
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/outcome I assume in
referencing it to call up this general concept for other speakers/users of
English. I too think it is a word of language. It seems to me that the word
denotes, "the result or effect of an action, situation, or event." So, and
I don't know how to put this not in language (and furthermore English), it
denotes the concept, "The result or effect of an action, situation or
event."

Now in the idiom of CRM, I am proposing that this be restricted to the
concept of one event resulting in another event of a type.

E7 pxxx had outcome of type E55 (of an E5/7).

So I am looking for a CRM property that would be able to denote a similar
concept to the one that the English language term 'outcome' denotes when it
is uttered. I suppose the ontological nature of an outcome as thus denoted
is an event caused by an other event (actually an event of a type). I
believe that this concept is not restricted to English speakers but is
probably widely shared.


>
> 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?
>

I don't understand about the cheap is cheerful comment, it is a pretty
standard phrase. (FUN!)

The second part 'what would the type pertain to', is exactly my problem
though, why I don't want to use this solution. The type does not pertain to
my E7 Activity but rather to an E7 Activity that it causes but which I do
not know in the particular but only at the categorical level. Ie, if I had
more knowlege I could just put in another E7 Activity node which was of
type sale (but I don't have the knowledge of that 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig]

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:

 a E7_Activity ;
  carried_out_by  ;
  triggered_activity_of_type  .

 a E55_Type .

Something like that?

Rob


On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 12:28 PM Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> 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 <
> 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

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 
 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

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 
 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Francesco Beretta via Crm-sig]

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 
 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[George Bruseker via Crm-sig]

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 
> 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
>> > 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

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 
 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

>

> and
>
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
>

> 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
> 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 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Martin Doerr via Crm-sig]

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 
 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
>

> and
>
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
>

> 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
> 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
>   

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[George Bruseker via Crm-sig]

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 
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
> > 
> > and
> > 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
> > 
> > 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
> > 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 
> >  > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> > 

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

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 


and
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 


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 
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 
 > 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[athinak via Crm-sig]

Hi George,

as far as I know, there is no other property from current CRM properties 
that have E55 Type as range and fits for your case, apart from P21.
Another solution would be to use P134 continued for expressing a 
coherence of outcomes between activities, but again this property does 
not have E55 as range (you will not avoid a full path), so it doesn't 
help a lot.


Best,
Athina


  Στις 2021-12-14 21:42, George Bruseker via Crm-sig έγραψε:

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

and
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

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
 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
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

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

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[George Bruseker via Crm-sig]

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
and
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
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> 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
> > 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

Re: [Crm-sig] Modelling an Event's General Outcome Ideas? Properties?

[Athanasios Velios via Crm-sig]

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
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