Issue 531: Observable Entity
Posted by Martin on 7/03/2021
Dear All,
In the course of elaborating the epistemology of measurement, issue 388,
I propose the following:
For CRMsci:
Change S15 Observable Entity to superclass of E4 Period, S10 Material Substantial.
Change S21 Measurement to superclass of E16 Measurement.
Change O24 measured (was measured by) to superproperty of P39 measured (was measured by)
Declare O24 measured (was measured by) and O12 has dimension (is dimension of) as top properties of CRMsci.
Declare O12 to be identical with P43 for S10 Material Substantial (and subclasses)
Further,
Consider the epistemology of distance measurement, or more generally, comparative measurements, such as distance of two physical features, elevation difference of mountain peaks, two events in space and time.
Posted by Martin on 1/6/2021
Dear All,
In the course of elaborating the epistemology of measurement, issue 388,
I propose the following:
For CRMsci:
- Change S15 Observable Entity to superclass of E4 Period, S10 Material Substantial.
- Change S21 Measurement to superclass of E16 Measurement.
- Change O24 measured (was measured by) to superproperty of P39 measured (was measured by)
- Declare O24 measured (was measured by) and O12 has dimension (is dimension of) as top properties of CRMsci.
- Declare O12 to be identical with P43 for S10 Material Substantial (and subclasses)
- O12 has dimension (is dimension of) ≡ P43 has dimension (is dimension of), for S10 Material Substantial (and subclasses) (Issue 537).
- O9 observed property type (property type was observed by) : subproperty of P177 assigned property of type (is type of property assigned)
Observable Entity definition (see issue 293):
The Problem of defining an Observable Entity was to justify a class consisting of Material and Conceptual Objects and something representing signals in space-time, by identifying what the common nature behind those actually is that allows for observing them, which we failed to understand for years. It further caused problems trying to put all top classes into CRMbase and to keep CRMsci under them. Observation obviously is fundamental, but also a basic element of argumentation. Therefore, draft definitions where moved between CRMsci, CRMbase and CRMInf without coming to a conclusion. In particular, the concept of measuring immaterial objects via unnamed representatives further obscured the nature of an observable. This has been resolved now in version 7.1.1.
More solidly, I now believe
- we have to regard all things and environments capable of sending signals or mechanically or chemically interacting with a measurement device, sensor, senses or probe.
- These should be material substantials, but observation occurs in spacetime and is temporary itself and about temporary phenomena, relatively persistent properties being just a special, case, not well-distiguished from temporary ones.
- Therefore we have to include material processes that interact with measurement devices or leave sensory impressions in a person, not to talk about processes materially affecting a human being. It appears that E5 Event is the nearest class for that, even though E5 Event includes mental processes, which may slightly overstretch the idea of observability, except for self-observation.
- I am hesitant to consider E4 Period, once the observation of a Period as a whole is rather bound to series of indicative events, but may be the distinction is not practical in all cases. To be discussed.
About the Immediacy of Observation (see issue 388)
In all philosophy of science, at least since Kant, there is the clear distinction between the physical interaction in the sensory organ or instrument, the mediating instrument such as a microscope or telescope, and the physical process at the source we intend to observe.
More current philosophical theories, such as by James Ladyman and others, reject the former distinction that observables are only things that can be recognized by human unaided senses, and regard adequate devices as equivalent. In the CRM, we defend the latter position. Ladyman stresses that the assessment of the reality of an observation by instrument is more reliable when its design (and the experience with it) is not made and restricted to recognize the claimed observation only, such as yardsticks, microscopes, Voltmeters, Oscilloscopes etc.
Nevertheless, we have to consider the spatial distance between the source and the sensor, the temporal delay between sensing and reading (observing) the sensor itself, the evaluation of the sensory data following the hypothesis of the instruments operation and the interpretation of the process causing the signal or reaction.
Consider looking at a distant galaxy versus at a bird through a telescope. Consider seeing a lightning versus a supernova through a telescope. Consider reception and evaluation of a seismic signal, isolating an event and identifying it with other signals of the network. Consider traces partly molten ceramics in an archaeological excavation (indicating a temperature) versus ceramics cones made for temperature measuring by their partial melting.
Obviously, there are good reasons to include in an instance of observation or measurement the whole reasoning chain until the cause of the signal, e.g., a rare bird flying by, and in other cases to split the activity into source, signal, signal reception, signal recognition and overall interpretation. The reasons may depend on the immediacy of observation and the confidence in the method to detect the observed kind of cause for the signal. Our models should be able to represent both views in a monotonic way. For instance, observing a chemical reaction can be regarded as part of observing/measuring a concentration of a pollutant.
The following is an example of for including in the meaning of a particular kind of measurement the standard evaluation procedure to a result that, in the narrower sense, is not of observable kind, i.e., position measurement. From this, I propose to create a more general class of measurement and observation, which includes spatiotemporal relations between objects and events, and counting.
Following a suggestion by MD, the CRM editorial board decided to narrow the scope of this issue as stated below:
- Change S15 Observable Entity to superclass of E4 Period, S10 Material Substantial.
- Consider the epistemology of distance measurement, or more generally, comparative measurements, such as distance of two physical features, elevation difference of mountain peaks, two events in space and time.
The grounds for this decision are:
The relation btw S21 Measurement and E16 Measurement and all the changes that stem from it [*] will be explored in issue 537.
[*]
- P39 measured (was measured by) isA O24 measured (was measured by),
- O12 has dimension (is dimension of) Ξ P43 has dimension (is dimension of) [for S10 Material Substantial and its subclasses],
- O12 has dimension (is dimension of) AND O24 measured (was measured by) are declared top properties in CRMsci.
There is a strong relevance with issue 388 (position measurement).
June, 3rd 2021
Post by Martin on June 7, 2021:
Dear All,
Attached my attempt to redefine Observable Entity so that we can measure distances between things!
Here the summary:
I reconsider Observation, Observable Entity and Situation in the light of the question, how to define Position Measurement. This leads to measuring distances as a “primitive”. Since this must be an observation, the fundamental problem that appears is that observations may pertain to constellations of multiple things.
Therefore:
- The properties O9, O16 are problematic and too restrictive. Situation as a proposition set holding at a particular time is more adequate, may be a straight-forward generalization.
- O9 observed property type (property type was observed by): S9 Property Type
- O16 observed value (value was observed by): E1 CRM Entity
We should introduce:
Oxxx observed situation (was observed by): Sxxx Observable Situation
An “Observable Situation” would be a proposition set relating Observable Entities, with a validity time-span that must be within the time-span of the observation. To be elaborated. Examples: People talking to each other, vehicles approaching each other, a vehicle moving in direction x with speed y etc.
E13 can manage only one property at a time. Therefore, S4 Observation is not a subclass of E13 Attribute Assignment.
We may need to consider an S4 Observation consisting of multiple Attribute Assignments. We can regard each propositions in the observed Sxxx Observable Situation to be result of an E13 Attribute Assignment. This can then gracefully collapse to a one-property observation.
This works, if restricting cardinality is a specialization ???
Then, an Observable Entity has a Dimension. In case of distances however, two observable entities share one Dimension. If we can formulate Dimension as a kind of Observable Situation (adding time and restricting cardinality), we can manage the generalizations.
Best,
Martin
In the 50th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 43nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the SIG MDs HW (scope notes for S4 Observation and S15 Observable Entity, reorganization of class hierarchies).
A summary of the decisions reached can be found below. For the details of the proposal and the discussion that followed see here.
Decision
- Pursue this issue further by attempting to define a more general concept of Observation and see how that translates into defining Observable Situations in CRMinf.
- Postpone 388.
HW: SdS definitions for I12 Observable Situation, Jxx observed situation, Jxx held at least for
HW: OE provide examples from the performing arts, MD categorical examples.
June 2021
Post by Martin, 4 October 2021
Dear All,
Here an attempt to improve the new scope note of S15 Observable Entity with respect to the confinement of event observation:
S15 Observable Entity
Subclass of: E1 CRM Entity
Superclass of: E5 Event
O10 Material Substantial
Scope note:
This class comprises instances of E5 Event and O10 Material Substantial i.e. items or phenomena, such as physical things, their behavior, current state and interactions or events, that can be observed by human sensory impression as well as enhanced by using tools and measurement or detection devices.
In order to be observable, instances of E5 Event must consist of some interaction or action of material substance. In some cases, the spatiotemporal confinement of the event itself, such as a flash, a car stopping etc. marks the limits of a documented observation of an event. In other cases, such as the situation of a car passing by a certain object, the spatiotemporal limits of the event of observing itself, as well as the direction of attention or the orientation of used instruments, may constrain the observed detail of a larger process, e.g., i.e. noticing the sight of a car passing by, a light emission.
Post by Martin, 4 October 2021
Dear All,
Here some thought on "Observable Situations":
An Observable Situation can be perceived as the focus of an observer, by human senses or enhanced or mediated by technical instruments, on a constellation, an interaction or a dynamic behavior of things or sections of things of material nature within a particular time-span and spatial extent. The observer him/herself may be directly involved in the latter or be receiving respective signals from these things of material nature. The focus of the observer determines the model he/she overlays over the observed reality in order to describe it in terms of distinct properties and value ranges parameters. The latter selection and projection from reality constitutes the content of a particular observable situation. Multiple observers may select different model, i.e. views, thing they put attention to, details and value systems to the same spatiotemporal area. Consequently, the observed situations may differ, but should, in principle, be compatible with a common reality in their overlaps.
Categorical Examples:
Sun rising over the horizon at a particular spot. A car passing by another car. A lightning. An air temperature and wind speed at a certain point and time. People being in a city, a house. Someone showing symptoms of sickness. A vegetation cover of a field. Someone eating. Two mountains being at a certain distance. Cars in a starting position for a race. The direction a compass needle shows at a particular spot.
To be formulated: how Obsevable entities must appear in models of observable situations.
Thoughts?
Best,
Martin
In the 51st CIDOC CRM & 44th FRBRoo SIG meeting, the SIG decided to
- update the definition of S4 Observation (keep the isA E13 Attribute Assignment statement)
HW: AK to reformulate the exapmple (The excavation of unit XI by the Archaeologicl Institute of Crete in 2004) according to the template - update the definition of S15 Observable Entity
- continue work on defining Observable Situation (in the lines that MD proposed)
HW: MD to provide a list of situations that are eligible for observation (or not)
HW: GH to contribute with examples from excavation records (where stratigraphic units are modelled usung S4 Observation).
HW: TV to contribute with examples from risk assemssment
for details of the scope notes and a summary of the discussion see here
HW by Athina Kritsotaki (reformulation of the example) for S4 Observation:
The excavation in the NE section of the central court of the Knossos palace by the Ephorate of Antiquities of Heraklion in 1997 (Κνωσός , Συντήρηση, Στερέωση και Ανάδειξη του ανακτόρου και του αρχ / κού χώρου 2008)
Reference: Κνωσός , Συντήρηση, Στερέωση και Ανάδειξη του ανακτόρου και του αρχ / κού χώρου (2008), Ηράκλειο, ΥΠΠΟ, ΤΔΠΕΑΕ, Επιστημονική Επιτροπή Κνωσού
In the 52nd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 45th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting; MD outlined the present state of the issue -proposed to split the issue in two parts: (1) finish updating S4 Observation (addition of new example -HW by AK) and (2) work on the class Sxx Observable Situation.
(a) MD presented HW (updated the scope note of Sxx Observable Situation to address comments made by the SIG during its 51st meeting). For a new version of the scope note and example see here.
Discussion: no objections content-wise, minor editorial changes by SdS and the group. What remains to be done is define the properties linking Sxx Observable Situation to S4 Observable Entity (and/or other classes).
Proposal: start a new issue (583), to continue this line of work.
Subject: How to assign dimensions to relative positions/ to distances in space-time and other relations between observable entities.
HW: MD to elaborate on that, set the background and propose a course of action
(B) AK presented HW for the same issue (produce a non-fictitious example for S4 Observation):
The excavation (S4) in the NE section of the central court of the Knossos palace by the Ephorate of Antiquities of Heraklion in 1997
[see definition of the class A9 Archaeological Excavation in CRMarchaeo version 1.5.0]
Reference: YPPO, TDPEAE, Epistimoniki Epitropi Knossou (2008). Knossos, Sintirisi, Stereosi ke Anadiksi tou anaktorou ke tou archaeologikou xorou.
The example was accepted.
Overall decision: The issue will be kept open until all HW has been turned in (HW: GH, TV -examples from excavation records and risk assessment, respectively)
February 2022
In the 53rd CIDOC CRM & 46th FRBRoo SIG meeting, the SIG decided to close the issue, on the grounds of S15 having enough examples as it is.
May 2022