Modeling Events. Lessons from Modeling Objects in GIScience. Werner Kuhn

Transcription

1 Modeling Events Lessons from Modeling Objects in GIScience Werner Kuhn Center for Spatial Studies Department of Geography University of California, Santa Barbara Kuhn, Ballatore AGILE 2015 #

2 Motivation Galton, A., & Mizoguchi, R. (2009). The Water Falls but the Waterfall does not Fall : New perspectives on Objects, Processes and Events. Applied Ontology, 4(2),

3 False Advertising!

4 A Paradox To measure static properties, e.g., temperature we rely on events (stimuli) e.g., fluid expansion Then, we infer events e.g., a fire from changes in the property. e.g., a sudden rise. Is this a useful insight?

5 Lessons from Object Modeling Events 1. Objects require no boundaries Events 2. Objects do require an identity 3. There are no infinitely small objects Events 4. Objects are not mind-independent Events 5. Objects are overrated events

6 Events require no boundaries The Buffalo News copyright-protected material Similar to objects, events are bounded, but require no boundaries (in time). Many interesting events have no known start and end times (traffic jam), much less crisp ones, thus requiring fuzzy temporal reasoning [Kauppinen].

7 Events (may) require an identity Unlike objects, events do not change. They may still require an identity for reasoning, but identity criteria are typically provided by the participating objects (Napa earthquake).

8 There are no infinitely short events Like objects take up space, events take up time. While a conceptualization of some events as instantaneous makes sense (landing), such instants are granular, at least in practice (by measurement and representation).

9 Events are not mind-independent Humans carve out objects and events from the fluxes of the environment. Given their transient nature, events appear even harder to agree upon than objects (heavy rainfall).

10 Events are overrated Event reasoning is hampered by different definitions, vague temporal boundaries, lack of understanding causality. Yet, spatial and mereological event reasoning can often be done based on event participants only.

11 Core Concepts of Spatial Information quality concepts cyberdog.wikispaces granularity accuracy content concepts field object network event base concept location

12 Conclusions 1. Event models for reasoning should be informed by what we have learned about object models, in order to avoid pitfalls. 2. The core concepts of spatial information make events and their participants explicit, asking what core notions we need. 3. Event models may in some cases be neither necessary nor sufficient. Where do we need process models? 4. All of this means we need more event ontology, not less!

13 Thank You! Kuhn, Ballatore AGILE 2015 #

14 Competency Questions 1. what is (was, will be) happening? 2. where is it happening? 3. when is it happening? 4. why is it happening? 5. who/what is involved? 6. what bigger event is it part of?