Issue 376: Scope note of event

Starting Date: 
2018-05-21
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

Following the outcome of the issue 369 from the 39th crm-sig meeting  about E5 Event scope note which states that there is a change of state and which  is wrong  and we should reformulate, Martin posted the following proposal on 21/5/2018

E5 Event

Subclass of:         E4 Period

Superclass of:      E7 Activity

E63 Beginning of Existence

E64 End of Existence

 

Scope note:         This class comprises changes of states in cultural, social or physical systems, regardless of scale, brought about by a series or group of coherent physical, cultural, technological or legal phenomena. Such changes of state will affect instances of E77 Persistent Item or its subclasses.

 The distinction between an E5 Event and an E4 Period is partly a question of the scale of observation. Viewed at a coarse level of detail, an E5 Event is an ‘instantaneous’ change of state. At a fine level, the E5 Event can be analysed into its component phenomena within a space and time frame, and as such can be seen as an E4 Period. The reverse is not necessarily the case: not all instances of E4 Period give rise to a noteworthy change of state.

 

Attempt of a new one:


Scope note:         This class comprises in-principle observable, distinct and delimited processes of material nature, in cultural, social or physical systems, even in a human brain,  involving and affecting in a characteristic way instances of E77 Persistent Item, brought about by some coherent physical, social or technological phenomena. An instance of E5 Event may or may not lead to relevant permanent changes of properties and relations of items involved in it. Properties and kinds of things that may be affected are characteristic for the type of an event.

please comment!

 

Current Proposal: 

posted by Franco on 21/5/2018

> Attempt of a new one:
>
>
> Scope note:         This class comprises in-principle observable,

I think that the CRM concerns ONLY observables; if so, the specification is superfluous.

> distinct and delimited processes of material nature, in cultural, social or physical systems, even in a human brain,

Definitely FORTH must have developed a telepathy machine .

What happens in the human brain is observable only (indirectly) with electro-encephalogram and the like, so: if this is the intended meaning, it is just a physical process as any other, e.g. those involving human like blood pressure vslue, hearth beat, etc. and not worth special mentioning. If instead this statement refers to (suggests?) observation of thinking, this is (luckily) not observable.

>  involving and affecting in a characteristic way instances of E77 Persistent Item, brought about by some coherent physical, social or technological phenomena. An instance of E5 Event may or may not

Only what *may* be affected, or *may not* be affected, somehow supports an identity criterium. What may or may not be affected looks as irrelevant, because we cannot understand from the consequences (or lack thereof) that some event took place, leading to an observed change (or lack of change), because the event may or may not have led to such change.

> lead
> to relevant permanent changes of properties and relations of items involved in it.

> Properties and kinds of things that may be affected are characteristic for the type of an event.
>

This is somehow contradictory with the previous statement: it states that there are things that may be affected, and other things that may not; perhaps also a third grouping that “may or may not". In all, it is a bit messy.

Franco

 

posted by CEO on 21/5/2018

'in-principle'  is in principle ok, but the term gives  a hint that what follows is not the case. At least for persons with knwlegde of the life in the former Soviet block.

It is better dropped.

posted by Martin on 21/5/2018

Hi Franco,

i
>
>> Attempt of a new one:
>>
>>
>> Scope note:         This class comprises in-principle observable,
> I think that the CRM concerns ONLY observables; if so, the specification is superfluous.
>
>> distinct and delimited processes of material nature, in cultural, social or physical systems, even in a human brain,
> Definitely FORTH must have developed a telepathy machine :).
>
> What happens in the human brain is observable only (indirectly) with electro-encephalogram and the like, so: if this is the intended meaning, it is just a physical process as any other, e.g. those involving human like blood pressure vslue, hearth beat, etc. and not worth special mentioning. If instead this statement refers to (suggests?) observation of thinking, this is (luckily) not observable.
Well, I know quite well what happens in my (conscious) brain, and I can give witness of it. I just observe myself. Not easy for others. My point was to see thought processes not as spiritual in the first place, without making any prejudice about spirituality.
>
>>  involving and affecting in a characteristic way instances of E77 Persistent Item, brought about by some coherent physical, social or technological phenomena. An instance of E5 Event may or may not
> Only what *may* be affected, or *may not* be affected, somehow supports an identity criterium. What may or may not be affected looks as irrelevant, because we cannot understand from the consequences (or lack thereof) that some event took place, leading to an observed change (or lack of change), because the event may or may not have led to such change.
What I had in mind where things like a fever, or seeing a bird flying by. I agree with you, but I did not say "may or may not affect"! I said "may or may not be permanent". In archaeology, you need permanent effects, but in history you may have witnesses of things that do not leave other traces than memories. Isn't it?
>
>> lead
>> to relevant permanent changes of properties and relations of items involved in it.
>> Properties and kinds of things that may be affected are characteristic for the type of an event.

>>
> This is somehow contradictory with the previous statement: it states that there are things that may be affected, and other things that may not; perhaps also a third grouping that “may or may not". In all, it is a bit messy.
Again, no: If I have fever, my temperature etc. is affected. Normally, not permanently. But having had fever during a meeting, may have had affect on my performance. Isn't it?

Does that make sense?

 

Posted by Martin on 21/5/2018

On 5/21/2018 9:39 PM, Christian-Emil Smith Ore wrote:
> 'in-principle'  is in principle ok, but the term gives  a hint that what follows is not the case. At least for persons with knwlegde of the life in the former Soviet block.
Don't agree, may need a better term. If someone dances on the road, but nobody is there, because the road is closed, it is not
observable, because there is no observer. But the same kind of event, in other circumstances, could be observed. There is nothing in intrinsic to itself which prevents observation.

A better idea how to say that?
 

Posted by Thanasis on 21/5/2018

I think "observable" on its own gives that meaning. Otherwise, simply
"potentially observed"?
 

Posted by Franco 22/5/2018

There is a subtle difference between “observed” and “observable”: “observed" is an “accident”, “observable” is “substance”.

So the lone moonlight dance is not observed for lack of observers, although it is observable. What the dancer thinks during the performance, and by the way also his intention to do so, are, instead, not observable, therefore can never observed, a fortiori.

Incidentally, the Event is defined as a change of state of some E77 Persistent Item, which curiously has participants as per P11, and also voyeurs as per P12, but cannot affect (=change the state of) anything for the lack of the related property e.g. P?? affects E77.

What’s the problem with the old scope note?
 

Posted by Robert Sanderson on 22/5/2018

Agreed entirely with this.  The proposed scope note seems more complicated than the current one, for no additional value.  The observability also brings into question the nature of the potential observer – can there be more than one observer for an event that lasts longer than a human lifetime? If there were an all-powerful, omni-present being, would that being count towards being observable (at which point, there’s no real meaning to “observable”) and if not, then what does count? Must all parts of the event be observable?

 

The lack of the relationship between the Event and an E77 has vexed us for a long time, such as for representing the ownership period (err, event) of an object.

Posted by George on 22/5/2018

Hi Rob et al.,

Just to jump in on the reason for this particular scope note reformulation work.

The reason behind the effort to articulate a new scope note lies in the reference to states in the previous scope note which has caused an ongoing debate regarding where then ‘states’ are in CIDOC CRM. Given that this debate recurs frequently, it seems worth the effort to kill the ‘states’ language..

When you say that E5 doesn’t have a relation to E77, what do you mean? There is p12 as the most general relation between an E2 kind of thing and and an E77. Or do you mean something else?

posted by Franco on 22/5/2018

I meant the following.

If I shoot a person in a street, this event has me as participant via P11 and all the people in the street as bystanders via P12. It looks strange that the victim has no direct relation with the omicide except P12 “was present”, like all the other people in the crime scene. Since an Event is a change in something, one could expect that there is a direct relationship with the thing(s) affected. I would also expect that in most cases, loosely speaking, an event modifies, and not destroys, for which there would be the dedicated property P13.

Look at this example, concerning an E5 Event that P2 has type E55 Type “Vandalism of art”

The fact: “On 30/12/56, Ugo Ungaza Villegas threw a rock at the painting [Mona Lisa]; this resulted in the loss of a speck of pigment near the left elbow” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_of_art).

the above E5 Event
P11 had participant E39 Ugo Ungaza Villegas
P12 occurred in the presence of “Le nozze di Cana” (painting by Veronese located in the same room, unaffected by the vandalic act)
P12 occurred in the presence of “Mona Lisa” (the victim)
P12 occurred in the presence of John Doe (an American Louvre visitor who was there by chance, not involved in the planned vandalism)
P12 occurred in the presence of a sofa (placed near the wall, for tired visitors; not sure there was one but could be)
P12 occurred in the presence of the stone (thrown at the painting, now in the Police archives as evidence n. 123456)

In conclusion, being present is often a poor property, bringing little information, except perhaps in the case of the Yalta Conference.

Incidentally, activities defined as subclasses of E7 (Acquisition, Move, transfer, etc.) allow to specify the thing they affect via an appropriate property; this is not the case for E7 itself, so for an activity not included in the CRM list one is confined to this “Presence” story.

Posted by Richard Sanderson on 22/5/2018

Similar to Franco’s response, I think what we’re missing is the equivalent of P16, but for Event or even Period. For example, the Period (or Event?) that represents the existence of an object occurs in the presence of many many objects, but only one is the object that the Period is for.

 

Reference to Issues: