Issue 333: Model for Plans

Starting Date: 
2017-03-24
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

Posted  by Martin on 24/3/2017

Dear All,

I propose the following: Class Declarations (attached  in .pptx file)

Activity Plan

Subclass of:       E29 Design or Procedure

Superclass of:   

Scope note:        This class comprises plans for some specific predefined activities or some kinds of activities to happen. They consist of descriptions of specific constraints, patterns or types of activities that could be realized. They may also foresee that the planned activities are be realized at times explicitly foreseen by the actor intending the application of the plan, for instance, to organize a conference, in which case we may talk about “active plans”. Alternatively, times of realization may be foreseen in reaction to an external kind of event foreseen by the plan, for instance a rescue action in case of earthquake according to a rescue plan, or a penal action in case of criminal activity according to a law, in which case we may talk about “reactive plans”. An instance of Activity Plan does not imply the intention of any Actor to apply it. It may be created together, before or without the will to apply it. For instance, laws are created before they are passed in the parliament.

Examples:

Properties:

 

Intention to Apply

Subclass of:       S16 State             

Superclass of:   

 

Scope note:        This class comprises the mental state of intention or wanting to apply a particular instance of Activity Plan by a particular E39 Actor. This can be understood as the period of time that an individual or a group holds a particular will. It binds the activity plan to the actor. The intention to apply may be abandoned before the realization of the plan. When the plan is realized, the intention to apply must still exist. Characteristically, the passing of a law initiates the intention of a parliament to apply a law. In many cases, the creation of the plan initiates the intention to apply it, and in case of “active plans” the realization ends the intention. Often, the existence of the intention to apply cannot be determined other by the realization of the plan.

 

Examples:

Properties:

is intention of: E31 Actor

is expressed in: Expression of Intention

to apply within : E61 Time Primitive

initiated by:  E7 Activity

ended by:  E7 Activity

intends to apply: Activity Plan

 

Expression of Intention (may be not necessary)

Subclass of:         E31 Document

Superclass of:   

 

Scope note:        This class comprises the externalisation, the expression of the Intention to Apply in the form of identifiable immaterial objects, such as texts, that make propositions about these intentions. These are kind of formal texts, legal documents, proceedings, minutes etc. that document the will, the intentions of the actor.

Examples:

Properties:        

 


Property Declaration

 


is intention of (has intention)

Domain:               Intention to Apply

Range:                 E39 Actor

Quantification:   (1,n:0,n)

Scope note:        This property associates an instance of EXX Intention to Apply an activity plan with the actors intending it.

Examples:           “A Paliament regarding a law as being decided”


is expressed in  (has expression)

Domain:               Intention to Apply

Range:                 Expression of Intention

Quantification: 

Scope note:        This property associates an Intention to Apply with the externalisation of this intention (Expression) in a document.

Examples:         


to apply within

Domain:               Intention to Apply

Range:                 E61 Time Primitive (Declarative Time-span)

Quantification:   (0,n:0,n)

 

Scope note:        This property associates an instance of EXX Intention to Apply with a statement of the time constraint for the actual application. This may vary with time. In case the change narrows down the time constraint, one may regard this as being simultaneously true and consistent. In case the new time constraint exceeds the previous one (typically delays), we may talk about a modification of the overall intention to apply, which could be regarded as a part of the overall intention, which continuous to be maintained.

 

Examples:           “Law XXX to be in force from 1.1.2018”


initiated by (initiates)

Domain:              Intention to Apply

Range:                 E7 Activity

Quantification:   (0,1:0,n)

Scope note:           This property associates the beginning of an instance of EXX Intention to Apply with an explicit activity initiating it. Often, the initiation of intention to apply is implicit in the creation of the activity plan.

Examples:            “Parliament XX deciding law YY”


ended by  (ends)

Domain:              Intention to Apply

Range:                 E7 Activity

Quantification:   (0,1:0,n)

 

Scope note:        This property associates the end of an instance of EXX Intention to Apply with an explicit activity terminating it. Often, the termination of intention to apply is implicit in the realization of the activity plan. In other cases, it is silently forgotten

Examples:
 

realized  (is realised by)

Domain:               E7 Activity         

Range:                 Activity Plan

Quantification:   (0,n:0,n)

Scope note:        This property associates a particular instance of E7 Activity which realized an Activity Plan in a way regarded as valid by the actors intending it. (Should we require that a realization falls within the period of intending it?)

Examples:           “Getting a fine following paragraph XXX.” “I have built my house (not me alone…)” 

Posted by Athanasios Velios on 2/4/2017

Dear Martin, all,

I am outside my comfort zone here, but I think this is particularly relevant to conservation so I had a look at it and made a few comments/changes. Please see attached (compressed due to attachment size limitations). 

Posted by Martin on 2/4/2017

Dear Thanassis,

Attached your version with a remake of the scope note for the time constraint.

I'd argue that preconditions are to much of an elaboration for a core model. I'd argue they are internal parts of the plan itself.

In the 38th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 31st FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig  reviewed the proposed definition of classes and properties about plans, agreed in principle and decided to assign numbers and add these to the core. It is needed to be checked the consequences on extensions, especially FRBR, and CRMsci. HW is assigned to Anais, Steve and Oyvind about reviewing the scope notes. The current text with the definition, comments and notes is here.

Heraklion April 2017

Current Proposal: 

In the 39th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 32nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed the homework of Steve about the scope notes of classes and properties of plan model. The reviewed definitions are here, the discussion and assigned homerwork are documented in this file.

Heraklion, October 2017

Posted by George on 10/1/2018

<PROPOSAL>

I wasn’t explicitly on this homework, but I picked it up and started to do a bit of work on it. I added an example from the Greek anti smoking law which I think can be used throughout. I am wondering why the properties are expressed in the present tense and not the past as per usual CRMbase practice. Is this intentional? Wouldn’t it be safer to use the past tense? Also I tentatively proposed some changes to the properties in terms of inserting some definite articles etc. to make the reading smoother (to my mind). Does anyone have a copy of the referenced diagram ready to hand?

George' proposal is here

In the 40th joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 33nd FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the crm-sig reviewed the   examples and comments made by GB and decided: 
- To accept  the examples except for the end of intention example see the highlighted text blue in the Appendix D of the minutes of this meeting
- To move all classes and properties   from CRMbase to CRMsoc and permanently delete the numbers associated in CRMbase with no further mention of these classes/properties.
- To assign  HW to (1)  MD to revise the highlighted   blue examples,  (2) Chryssoula Bekiari (CB)  to do the above editing and deleting, (3) Francesco Beretta(FB) to add these classes and properties described in the appendix to CRMsoc
 
Cologne, January 2018

 

Posted by Martin on 17/5/2018

Dea All,

here some examples for intentions:

P193 was ended by  (ended)

Domain: E101 Intention to Apply

Range: E5 Event

Quantification: (0,1:0,n)

Scope note:       This property associates the end of an instance of E101 Intention to Apply with an explicit activity or event terminating it. Often, the termination of the ‘intention to apply’ is implicit in the realization of the activity plan. In some cases, it may be silently forgotten.

Examples:        

§  Storing MS Greek 418 into its new phase box (E7 Activity) ends the intention to conserve it (E101)
Added:

§  The intention to apply §175 StGB of the German federal law (declaring homosexuality as a crime) was ended by the deletion of §175 StGB in 1994 by the German Budestag (E7).
=====================================

P189 was the intention of (had intention)

Domain: E101 Intention to Apply

Range:E39 Actor

Quantification: (1,n:0,n)

Scope note:       This property associates an instance of E101 Intention to Apply an activity plan with the actors intending it.

Examples: Reformulated:

§  The intention to apply the Law 3730/2008 against smoking in work places (E101) was the intention of the Greek government (E39).
FURTHER:

P192 was initiated by (initiated)

Domain: E101 Intention to Apply

Range: E5 Event

Quantification: (0,1:0,n)

Scope note:       This property associates the beginning of an instance of E101 Intention to Apply with an explicit event initiating it. Often, the initiation of the ‘intention to apply’ is implicit in the creation of the activity plan.

Examples:
REFINED:
§  The intention to apply of Law 3730/2008 against smoking in public/work places (E101) was initiated by the signature and publication of the law (E5) in the government paper as ΦΕΚ 262/τ. Α'/23-12-2008  on 23/12/2008.


 

Posted by Martin on 17/5/2018

Dear All,

Continuing:
"On January 1, 1872, exactly one year after it had first taken effect, the penal code of the North German Confederation became the penal code of the entire German Empire. By this change, sexual intercourse between men became again a punishable offence in Bavaria as well. Almost verbatim from its Prussian model from 1794, the new Paragraph 175 of the imperial penal code specified:

    Unnatural fornication, whether between persons of the male sex or of humans with beasts, is punished with imprisonment, with the further punishment of a prompt loss of civil rights.[16]

Even in the 1860s, individuals such as Karl Heinrich Ulrichs and Karl Maria Kertbeny had unsuccessfully raised their voices against the Prussian paragraph 143." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175#German_Empire.

Consequently:

E101 Intention to Apply

Subclass of:  E2 Temporal Entity

Superclass of:   

Scope note:       This class comprises the mental states of individual instances of E39 Actor that intend to or want to apply a particular instance of Activity Plan. This can be understood as the period of time when an individual or group holds a particular will. It binds the activity plan to the actor. The ‘intention to apply’ may be abandoned before the realization of the plan. When the plan is actually realized, the ‘intention to apply’ must necessarily still exist. Characteristically, the passing of a law initiates the intention of a parliament to apply the law. In many cases, the creation of the plan initiates the intention to apply it, and in the case of “active plans” the completed realization of the plan ends the intention. Often, the existence of the ‘intention to apply’ cannot be determined other than by the realization of the plan.

Examples:        

§  The intention of Nicholas Pickwoad to undertake conservation work on MS Greek 418 at the Saint Catherine's Library.

§  The intention of the German governments, from the Empire to the Federal Republic to apply paragraph 175, making homosexuality a punishable offense, from 1872 to 1991.

Posted by Martin on 17/5/2018

Dear All,
I propose to add to the model of plans this explicitly as bibliography: http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/18452/19215