Issue 625: O13 "triggers" scope note

ID: 
625
Starting Date: 
2022-12-08
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

During the 55th CIDOC CRM-48th FRBR/LRMoo SIG meeting Wolfgang Schmidle proposed starting a new issue, where to discuss the scope note of O13 triggers (in particular the last clause which places a requirement for the triggering event to have been concluded before the start of the triggered event). 

The examples and the scope note were considered to be conflicting one another. 

Anais Guilleme proposed that if we want to use scientific examples, we can use alterations examples in conservation science or mechanical effort test on materials

December 2022

Post by Wolfgang Schmidle (8 DEcember 2022)

Dear All,

O13 "triggers" in CRMsci requires the triggering event to be finished by the time the triggered event starts. In the example of rainfall causing a landslide in the scope note, it would mean that continuing rainfall has to be split up into the part before the landslide and after the landslide. This is not obvious and needs to be reflected in the scope note.

One example for O13 is the 1966 flood in Florence triggering mould growth on books stored in flooded library rooms. I read this to claim that the mould growth started only after the flood had receded completely, which I find a strong claim. However, Steve argued that the cited source does not contain information about the mould starting to grow while the flood was still ongoing.

Other examples we discussed were:
* an asthmatic in a room full of cats, triggering an asthma attack while still being in the room
* an earthquake triggering the destruction of houses: It is not realistic to split up the earthquake event into parts for each destroyed house.

Best,
Wolfgang

Post by Martin Doerr (20 December 2022)

Dear All,

I think we need to reconsider this. The examples somehow make clear that the triggering event to be finished by the time the triggered event starts is incidental and not essential the the intended meaning. I now support an interpretation that the triggering event is essentially of different nature from the triggered one. I think we need a spatiotemporal overlap of the triggering event with the beginning of the triggered event. Without diving into STVs,
 it appears to me that P176 starts before the start of and P173i ends after or with the start of is the best definition.

In STV thinking, the triggered event should also not contain areas that occur locally before all neighbouring areas and do not overlap with the triggering event. I.e., and event could start at two different places and then merge into one, but only one starting area would be triggered. That does not make sense.

best,

Martin

Post by Thanasis Velios (20 December 2022)

Indeed and the original questions raised were about the phrase in the
introduction "The association of the two events is based on their
temporal proximity, i.e. the triggering event ends when the triggered
event starts." I think the examples mentioned in the scope note indicate
a temporal relationship of:

P176 starts before the start of

than the agreed:

P182 ends before or with the start of

Even in the case of, say, a spring-loaded mousetrap, it would be
difficult to tell that the event of stepping on the trip (of the trap)
is completed before the spring is released.

So we either explain the event splitting approach or opt for the safer
option of P176.

All the best,

Thanasis

P.S. I think any change would need to go to 2.1.