Closed rjyounes closed 3 months ago
I upport this idea, I have used if for several clients in various industries. I created the following 10 year ago at a consumer products client who did risk assessment, it was updated many years later at a global financial organization. We would do this differently now. I now think that a hypothetical event is not an event, but rather a specification of a possible future event. Hypothetical events are generated by computer simulations (e.g. an oil spill).
gist:HypotheticalEvent
a owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf
gist:Event ,
[
a owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty gist:hasA ;
owl:onClass gist:AssessedLiklihood ;
owl:minQualifiedCardinality "0"^^xs:nonNegativeInteger ;
]
;
rdfs:label "HypotheticalEvent"^^xs:string ;
rdfs:comment "An event that may never happen; useful e.g. for planning or risk assessment; may involve computer simulation."^^xs:string ;
.
Here is the version for an insurance company:
eo:HypotheticalEvent
a owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf gist:Specification ;
skos:definition "A characterization of an event that might happen. It is useful for risk assessment and insurance contracts."^^xsd:string ;
skos:prefLabel "Hypothetical Event"^^xsd:string ;
.
eo:Incident
a owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf gist:Event ;
skos:definition "An undesirable event that occurred."^^xsd:string ;
skos:prefLabel "Incident"^^xsd:string ;
.
We had an internal disucsssion on this. Here are the notes
Rebecca: Hypothetical Event should not be related strictly to risk.
We agreed that it would be a specification? Should we call it EventSpecification
rather than HypotheticalEvent
.
Michael: gist has EventSpecification
, client ontologies could define HypotheticalEvent
related to risk if needed.
Rebecca: We must distinguish it from a PlannedEvent
.
Dan: A PlannedEvent
could have dates attached to it, EventSpecification
would not, just like a ProductSpecification
never has a serial number or is not located in space.
Michael: They should not be disjoint.
Rebecca: They should be disjoint, otherwise the two will be confused.
Rebecca: Is any event that hasn't occurred in some sense hypothetical?
Jamie: A hypothetical event may have dates.
Rebecca: Leave hypothetical event out of it, since we don't want to define it.
Rebecca: Let's drop it because we don't know what it is.
Jamie: But this is a common concept that many clients need.
Rebecca: But we don't know what it is, perhaps clients will want to define it in different ways, leave it up to client. Cyber-risk can be in gistCyber.
Michael: I created EventSpecification
for many clients, propose defining it in gist.
Dan: A client uses in the context of risk.
Rebecca: The notion of event specification in gist does not accord with this concept of "event specification."
Peter: Specific event specifications like "hurricane" are really classes that are instantiated. I might have a party, which is a hypothetical event. Some aspects of a hypothetical event becoming a real event ...
Michael: Fuzzy boundary between specifications that real things are based on and classes that are instantiated. iPhone 15 could be a specification, or it could be a class that is instantiated by individual iPhones.
Rebecca: Events have a lifecycle, from hypothetical to planned to planned with dates to ongoing to historical (not all events go through every phase).
Jamie: As soon as you start thinking about an event it's a planned event. A specification, like "birthday party," is a specification of what a birthday party is.
Rebecca: A hypothetical event is not a planned event. Do we ever need to include it in the graph?
Rebecca: Current definition of gist:Specification
: "A set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, design, product, or service." The concept of event specification does not conform to this. This is a useful concept and extending it will render it less useful. And Dave has not been in favor of extending the concept of specification to things like process specifications.
One use case I've come across for an event specification: we want to analyze how closely an actual event came to what was initially specified/planned. For dates you can use planned vs actual, but not for other features, such as participants, venue, etc. Obviously this cannot be a single event that starts as a planned event and ends as an actual one, which gives no means of comparison.
This is interesting. Do you think it is broad enough to warrant having in gist?
Probably not.
I'm in favor of calling this EventSpecification
or EventTemplate
, and @mkumba has mentioned this as well in the context of business and financial events in the sub-gists.
I approve. I have used EventSpecification
in some client ontologies - confirm this with @DanCarey404 for one example.
Dave: Specification is ambiguous: it may mean how to make something, or as a conformance criteria. In the case of event specification it's the latter. We've almost never used the former.
Katie: How to is more like a task template.
DECISION:
gist:EventSpecification
as a subclass of gist:Specification
gist:Specification
to include event specificationgist:Specification
to limit to conformance criterion. Add annotation to look at TaskTemplate
if you are looking for the concept of a process specification.Changed assignee from @marksem to @uscholdm since the latter has submitted PPR #1077 for it.
This would be a subclass of
Event
for dateless events - I.e., max 0 start and end dates. Note that unlikePlannedEvent
s, which remainPlannedEvents
even when they have occurred, aHypotheticalEvent
must cease to be one as soon as it gets dates, either planned or actual.Related to the removal of date restrictions in version 12.0.0; see issue #760 and PR #777.