CRMinf Argumentation and Scholarly Reading Stephen Stead CRMSIG

CRMinf: Argumentation and Scholarly Reading Stephen Stead CRM-SIG Paveprime Ltd University of Southampton British Museum July 2017 1

Agenda q. CRMinf: recording Sloan assertions q. New requirements q. Proposed Extension q. Factoid Prosopography q. Conclusion 2

Spatial Relations Between Catalogue Entry Versions (S 1) E 31 Document Original Misc 4 P 128 is carried by E 24 Physical Man-Made Thing ESL 127704 E 25 Man-Made Feature Marks of Original Misc 4 P 53 has former or current location a ss P h 59 ec P 5 n tio 9 h E 53 Place Marks of Misc 4 X as sec tio n P 53 has former or current location E 53 Place of Original Misc 4 text P 122 borders with Place of Misc 4 X symbol P 122 22 P 1 E 53 Place of Misc 4 L 226 text Misc 4 X P 122 Place of Misc 4 25 text 3

Evolution of Catalogue Entry q. A] 4. -> X-> L 226 -> 25 q. B] 4. -> L 226 ->X-> 25 q. C] 4. -> L 226 -> 25 -> X q Others? 4

Evolution of Catalogue Entries (A) E 65 Creation of Misc 4 P 94 i was created by P 106 i forms part of & P 148 i is component of E 31 Document Version 2 Misc 4 P 10 6 i & P 14 8 i Misc 4 L 226 i E 31 Document Misc 4 X P 94 i was created by P 16 6 u sed spe cif ic o P 94 i bje ct E 65 Creation of X and Version 2 Misc 4 E 65 Creation P 94 i Creation of L 226 and Version 3 Misc 4 P 16 8 i P 1 4 & 6 i P 1 0 Version 4 Misc 4 Original Misc 4 P 1 P 94 i was created by 48 P 1 i& 06 P 1 E 31 Document 6 0 P 1 E 31 Document Version 3 Misc 4 4 i& 8 i E 31 Document Misc 4 25 P 94 i E 65 Creation of 25 and Version 4 Misc 4 5

CRMinf classes: Temporal Entities E 13 Attribute Assignment CRMsci CRMinf S 15 Observable Entity I 1 Argumentation E 2 Temporal Entity S 4 Observation S 5 Inference Making I 7 Belief Adoption I 2 Belief 6

CRMinf classes: Others E 28 Conceptual Object E 59 Primitive Value I 6 Belief Value E 90 Symbolic Object E 73 Information Object I 4 Proposition Set CRMinf E 89 Propositional Object I 3 Inference Logic 7

CRMinf Argumentation E 39 Actor P 14 carried out by (performed) I 1 Argumentation I 7 Belief Adoption J 2 concluded that (was concluded by) P 116 starts I 5 Inference Making J 3 applies (was applied by) P 16 used specific object I 3 Inference Logic CRMinf J 6 adopted (adopted by) P 17 was motivated by I 2 Belief J 1 used as premise (was premise for) P 17 was motivated by J 4 that (is subject of) I 4 Proposition Set J 5 holds to be (is held by) I 6 Belief Value 8

Modelling my Beliefs in Evolutions A, B and C E 39 Actor P 14 carried out by I 5 Inference Making J 2 concluded that Evolution Decision Person Sd. S J 1 used as premise I 6 Belief Value True at th ed lud nc co J 2 concluded that I 4 Proposition Set S 1 J 5 holds to be I 3 Inference Logic Catalogue Text Rules J 2 BM Belief in Spatial Relations of Misc 4 J 4 that J 3 applies I 2 Belief Sd. S Belief in Evolution A of Misc 4 I 4 Proposition Set Evolution A J 4 that I 4 Proposition Set Evolution C I 6 Belief Value True I 2 Belief Sd. S Belief in Evolution B of Misc 4 J 4 that I 2 Belief Sd. S Belief in Evolution C of Misc 4 J 5 holds to be I 4 Proposition Set Evolution B J 5 holds to be I 6 Belief Value False 9

Trusting a Belief E 39 Actor I 7 Belief Adoption P 14 carried out by Adopting Sd. S belief Group BCHK 17 J 2 concluded that J 6 adopted I 2 Belief Sd. S Belief in Evolution A of Misc 4 J 4 that I 4 Proposition Set Evolution A J 5 holds to be I 6 Belief Value True I 2 Belief BCHK 17 Belief in Evolution A of Misc 4 J 4 that I 4 Proposition Set Evolution A J 5 holds to be I 6 Belief Value True 10

The New Bit q. Text A- easy to represent content u. No desire to document the process q. Text B- easy to represent content u. No desire to document the process q. Text A and Text B disagree q. I like A: Why? q. Multi-Vocality 11

Author’s position Like War q. Retribution u. I am going to kill you because you killed my brother q. Anticipation u. I am going to kill you because I killed your brother q. Diplomacy u. I am going to kill my brother and then kill you on the pretext that your brother did it HHGTTG, Adams 1978 12

Author’s position q. Report u. Author describes what they believe happened q. Propaganda u. Author describes what they want you to believe happened q. Manipulation u. Author describes what they want you to think they believe happened OR u. Author describes what they think, you want them to believe happened 13

Proposed Extension CRM I 2 Belief E 73 Information Object Jx 1 understands (understood by) Ix Reading Jx 2 believing provenance I 4 Proposition Set: Provenance I 4 Proposition Set: Triples of E 73 content CRMinf J 5 holds to be (is held by) I 6 Belief Value: Default=“True” Jx 3 reading as 14

Factoid Prosopography http: //factoid-dighum. kcl. ac. uk/what-is-factoid-prosopography-all-about/ 15

Mapping Factoid Model to CRM Paisin & Bradley 2012 16

What the aim is 17

What it is not q. CRM and CRMinf are not AI u. No attempt to automate reasoning q. The CRMinf extension only for “normal” cases u. Anything not “vanilla default” use full description 18

Conclusion q. CRMinf can document use of texts q. Full detail not always required q. Shortcuts using “normal” values may reduce documentation burden q. Development Effort Concentrates On u. What are the shortcuts AND u. What is “normal” 19