2.2 Aboutness Context
2.2.2 Events
History revolves around the intentional acts of individuals and groups and their passive or active participation in and presence at unintentional events and activities. The general patternEvents represents the essential constituents of the occurrence and conduct of such events and activities.
General Pattern The patternEventsrepresents questions about events or activities in general and things bearing information about events or activities in particular.
1. Factsabout an event (E5) or activity (E7).
2. The identifiable butimmaterialthings(E73 Information Object)bearing information about an event (E5) or activity (E7).
Figure47shows the generalEventspattern. The classE5 Eventcomprises phenomena which result in recognizable “changes of state in cultural, social or physical systems” (Crofts et al.,2006, 4). They have ramifications onendurants(IV:3.1): physical entities, such as “people, animals or things”, or conceptual entities such as “ideas, concepts, products of the imagination or common names” (Crofts et al.,2006, 4). Instances of the classE5 Eventare not purposefully caused by actors; here the actors are passively involved or affected. Examples of instances of the classE5 Eventare natural disasters such as earthquakes or floods, accidents, diseases and plagues, or celestial phenomena.
Figure 47– GeneralEventspattern.
Although users do not directly inquire about such unintentional events in their questions, such instances need to be representable in the model. For instance, users indirectly provide many examples of a type of event, namely birth and natural death events. In the CRM, these events are represented by the classesE67 BirthandE69 Deathas sub-classes ofE5 Event. Since birth and natural death events concern and directly pertain to the lives of persons, they are discussed in the context of theActorspattern (V:2.2.4). For example, requests for birth or death certificates are part of theActorspattern.
Instances of the classE5 Event can be interpreted as “non-activities” which means they happen with or without the intentional participation or immediate causation of humans. The sub-classE7 Activitycomprises any kinds of acts which have definitely been carried out intentionally by instances of the classesE21 PersonorE74 Group. Should instances ofE5 Eventthat are not activities need to be distinguished, these can be referred to as “unintentional events”.
Instances ofE7 Activitycan have ramifications of any scale or magnitude within the cultural, social or physical world around the actor in question. The scale and duration of these actions may have any possible scope or duration. Examples include the Second World War, the “Day of
the Stamp”, German Reunification in 1989/1990, a parliamentary meeting of the Reichstag, or party conferences of the KPD.
Important sub-classes ofE7 ActivityareC6akmPlanningwhich is discussed in the context of thePlanspattern (V:2.2.3), andE86 LeavingandE85 Joining, andE66 FormationandE68 Dissolution, all of which are discussed in the context of theActorspattern (V:2.2.4).
The propertyP11 had participant (participated in)expresses the active or passive presence and participation of persons or groups in an event or activity.79 For the purposes of this study, persons and groups only participate in actual activities as previously discussed. The only exceptions are birth and natural death events which are discussed in the context of theActors pattern (V:2.2.4).
Examples for the active or passive participation or presence of an actor in an activity include the visit (P11) of a delegate to a party conference, a soldier’s participation (P11) in a battle, or the act of receiving (P11) a medal.
The propertyP14 carried out by (performed)expresses the active andcausalparticipation in or performance of an activity by a person or group. The aspect of causal participation or performance must be construed broadly: For example, creation activities, as discussed in the context of theProvenancepattern (V:2.1.1), are carried out (P14) by the person formulating a personal letter or a group collectively taking (P14) the minutes of a meeting. In a more abstract sense, J.F. Kennedy carried out (P14) his visit to Berlin in 1968 while photographers only participated in (P11) this activity.
Furthermore, theEventspattern focusses on the event or activity itself. Questions which are about the actor his or herself are part of theActorspattern (V:2.2.4).
Events and activities happen (P7 took place at (witnessed)) at particular places (E53) and occur (P4 has time-span (is time-span of)) during particular time-spans (E52) or fall within(P10 falls within in (contains))particular periods (E4). For example, the writing of the letter occurred during the summer of 1946 (E52), or the parliamentary meetings of the Reichstag took place in the Reichstag building (E53) in Berlin (E53) during the Weimar Republic (E4).
Questions often demand documents about activities which occurred in a particularcontext of another activity. For this reason, connecting activities is important and also allows for the discovery of additional documents which may be connected to intermediate activities.
TheEventspattern covers three principal relationships between activities:
1. Forms ofpart-whole relationships between activities are expressed by the propertyP9 consists of (forms part of). Each activity which forms a part of a larger activity is aconstitutive partof the logical whole. For example, the policy of socializations (E7) of private businesses during the early years of the GDR were part of the general process of “Stalinisierung” (E7) in Central Europe.
79Note that the propertyP11 had participant (participated in)also pertains to the classE7 Activitysince this class is a sub-class ofE5 Event.
2. Forms ofsequencesof activities where one activity is theintentional continuationof another are expressed by the propertyP134 continued (was continued by). For example, the parlia-mentary deliberations on a new law may continue over several different activities such as various committee meetings and plenary assemblies.
3. Forms of generalcausal influencebetween two or more activities are expressed by the property P15 was influenced by (influenced). For example, a regular meeting of town officials is influenced by the bombing of their city. If an activity happens onlyin reaction to another, then the propertyP17 was motivated by (motivated)can be used; for example, a statement (E7) is given in reaction to (P17) public critique of the enactment (E7) of a new law.
Part-whole relationships permit the modelling of situations where activities happen in the specific context; that is, as part of a larger activity. These relationships are important for requests for documents about activities which occurred as part of another.
Sequences and general causal relationships allow for the modelling of simplebeforeand aftersituations. For inquiries requesting documents about activities which either happened in reaction to or in continuation of a previous activity, such connections are essential.
As a specialization of theEventspattern, the patternPlansdescribes an even more explicit and intentional causation between two or more activities: the general and specific purpose of a planning activity and the planned activity. Since plans are pivotal in this context, these situations are part of thePlanspattern.
In contrast to theActorspattern (V:2.2.4), questions pertaining to theEventspattern primarily focus on the event or activity. The actor is not the main interest of the question. Questions pertaining to theActorspattern may also inquire about activities; however, these recognizably place their interest on the actor and the activities carried out by him, her or them.
In terms of query instantiations, questions pertaining to theEvents pattern will ask for documents about events or activities, while questions pertaining to theActorspattern will ask for documents directly about an actor and about activities carried out by him, her or they.
The following examples demonstrate various instantiations of theEventspattern and discuss different aspects of the interpretation of questions.
Example - “Photographs of a particular activity”
Q031-01-03barch “Pictures of J.F. Kennedy’s visit to Berlin, June 1963.”
The general question type isresource discovery <specific type>. Thewantedentity is<activity>.
The relevantgivenentities aretype of document(“pictures”),particular activity(“J.F. Kennedy’s visit to Berlin, June 1963”),particular person(“J.F. Kennedy”),particular place(“Berlin”), and time-span(“June 1963”).
The question is amaterial factquestion since it inquires about an observable relationship between pictures and an activity. The provenance contextisdocumentation [actor] since the
pictures of the visit of J.F. Kennedy to Berlin must have been created as a direct observation of the activity. However, the creator is unknown. Theaboutness contextisevents [particular activity].
Figure48shows the most simple variant of the example. Here, a query would ask for any visual item, such as private photographs, depictions in newspaper articles, or even drawings, about the visit of J.F. Kennedy to Berlin in June 1963.
Figure 48– Q031-01-03abarch: Photographs of a particular activity.
This example resembles a plain subject access query. The query will succeed if the activity
“J.F. Kennedy’s visit to Berlin, June 1963” (E7) has been identified and explicitly indexed, as well as related to appropriate depictions (E36) of the activity. This is unlikely to be the case in most archival information systems. Alternatively, a keyword search might succeed if appropriate text elements, such as “Kennedy”, “visit to Berlin”, and “pictures”, appear close enough to each other in the metadata; that is, in the description of the archival unit which contains relevant depictions.
Figure 49– Q031-01-03bbarch: Photographs of a particular activity as the result of a documenta-tion activity.
Figure49is meant to demonstrate the pattern-based approach to a relevant query based on the known contextual information. In this figure, the known contextual information and the known implicit knowledge from the ontology are explicitly shown. The previously assumed particular activity “J.F. Kennedy’s visit to Berlin, June 1963” (E7), however, is not given but identified by contextual information.
The activity is identified by the participation of the person “J.F. Kennedy” (E21), by the place where the activity happened, “Berlin” (E53), and by the time-span during which the activity took place, the duration of “June 1963” (E52). The assumed documentation activity, from which the pictures (E36) of the visit must have resulted, is also further qualified by the same place and time-span.
The documentation activity must have been carried out by an actor – a group or person – who at the same timeparticipatedin the visit of J.F. Kennedy. This actor might have taken photographs based on a mandate, for example, a newspaper reporter or spies from the Soviet side.
Any of this information will help to discover and identify relevant visual material document-ing the activity in question. This example demonstrates how the patterns and the AKM indicate which kinds of information are relevant to the user and which kinds of information should be made explicit.
Example - “Documents about a particular activity”
Q023-12-02barch “Do you have documents about the topic ’Bombing of Kassel 1943’?”
The general question type is resourcediscovery <material-finding>. Thewantedentity is <activ-ity.role>. The relevantgivenentities areparticular activity(“bombing [of Kassel 1943]”). The supplementaryinformation includestime-span(“1943”), andparticular place(“Kassel”).
This is amaterial factquestion since it inquires about an observable subject relationship between a document and an activity. The provenance contextis provenance [actor]since no indication is given as to who might have created a document about the bombing of Kassel in 1943. Theaboutness contextisevents [particular activity]since “bombing of Kassel 1943”
designates a particular activity.
The question is unspecific and general. The first question is whether “Bombing of Kassel 1943” refers to all bombings of Kassel which might have happened during the year 1943, or a one particular bombing. Since “topic” indicates an interest in any activity of the type “bombing”, a type of activity is assumed.
Two principle interpretations are possible: (1) The first interpretation includes any documents resulting from a direct or indirect observation of the activity “Bombing of Kassel 1943”, such as diaries, statements of eye witnesses, newspaper articles, or official reports on damages etc.
Direct or indirect observations only entail that the documents are directly about or directly refer to the activity “Bombing of Kassel 1943”. (2) The second principal interpretation would understand the request to be for any documents about activities “influenced” by the “Bombing of Kassel 1943”, such as minutes of meetings discussing the events or speeches in reaction to the bombings.
Figure50shows the first principal interpretation. The diagram is similar to that of Figure 49in that the given contextual information is explicitly represented (“Kassel” (E53) and “1943”
(E52)), and a documentation activity (C1akm) is shown. In this example, the actor and the
mandate have been omitted. Of course, the most simple instantiation would be any document (E31) about (P129) the “Bombing of Kassel 1943” (E7); however, the same problems would apply as discussed in the context of the previous example and Figure48.
Figure 50– Q023-12-02abarch: Documents about a particular activity.
An example of such a document would be any newspaper article (E31) about (P129) the
“Bombing of Kassel 1943” or photographs taken of the events (E31). These documents may have been created during but also at any time after the event.
Figure51shows the second principal interpretation. This instantiation covers any documents about (P129) any activities (E7) which happened after the “Bombing of Kassel 1943” but which are related (P15) to it.
Figure 51– Q023-12-02bbarch: Documents about a particular activity.
Again, the most simple instantiation would be any documents (E31) about (P129) any activity (E7) influenced by (P15) the events of the “Bombing of Kassel 1943” (E7); for example, the
removal of rubble and ruins (E7) would be an activity motivated by (P17) the “Bombing of Kassel 1943” (E7). These activities may have been documented in diaries, which would probably also refer directly to the bombings, or newspaper articles. The same instantiation would be possible withC2akmSelf-Documentationwhich would cover any meetings (E7) influenced by (P15) the
“Bombing of Kassel 1943” (E7).
Example - “Documents about a named activity”
Q059-01-12barch “I am interested in documents of the philatelists in the Kulturbund of the SBZ and GDR which are thematically about the ’Day of the Stamp’ and which are limited to the time approximately until the end of October 1949.”
The general question type isresource discovery <material-finding>. Thewantedentity is<activity>.
The relevantgivenentities areparticular group(“SBZ”, “GDR”, “Philatelists in the Kulturbund”), particular activity(“Day of the Stamp”), andtime-span(“ca. until the end of October 1949”).
This is amaterial factquestion since it inquires about an observable subject relationship between documents and an activity. Theprovenance contextisprovenance [particular group] since the question requests documents either kept or created by a particular group. Theaboutness context isevents [particular activity].
Figure52shows the exemplary query pattern. Regarding the provenance context, particular queries may ask for things which have been either created (P108), produced (P94), or kept (P49) by the particular group “philatelists in the Kulturbund”. The actor subsumes not only the particular group “philatelists in the Kulturbund” but also by any person or group as a member of this particular group.
Figure 52– Q059-01-12barch: Documents about a named activity.
This basic pattern is known and explained in detail in the Provenance pattern (V:2.1.1).
Additional important given information includes the time-span “approximately until the end of October 1949”, during which the production and creation activities took place.
Regarding the aboutness context, the target of any query consists of information objects about the particular activity “Day of the Stamp”. This particular activity can be represented in various ways:
1. information objects about the particular activity “Day of the Stamp”, if one particular “Day of the Stamp” is assumed, this would be to assert the latter, subsuming all the “Day of the Stamp” activities which have ever occurred,
2. information objects about any activity which was part of the particular activity “Day of the Stamp”; for example, various activities organized in the context of the “Day of the Stamp”, including those within the general context of another activity,
3. or information objects about activities which generally occurred in the context of a principal activity of the type “Day of the Stamp”, such as the particular activities each year in the context of the annual “Day of the Stamp”.
This example should demonstrate that varying representations of specific activities are possible and depend on the specific activity to be modelled. The third option would probably be the most relevant in the current context; of course, this always depends on the data pertaining to the specific instance that is to be represented with the AKM. The AKM, however, is flexible enough to accommodate most reasonable variations. ThePlanspattern, which is introduced next, would represent another possible query specifically about the planning the “Day of the Stamp”.
Statistics In the complete sample, the Events pattern has been assigned to 109 questions representing 23% of all inquiries. Of these, 70 questions belong to the BArch sample amounting to 20% of all inquiries in that sample, while the remaining 39 questions represent 30% of the NAN sample. The general pattern occurs only once in the BArch sample with the unspecific primary entity of interestany. Most important in the whole sample and in the context of the Eventspattern areparticular activitieswith 75 occurrences (69%), of which 46 (66%) belong to the BArch sample and 29 (74%) to the NAN sample. Second comestype of activitiesamounting to 31 (28%) in the whole sample of which 23 (33%) belong to the BArch sample and 8 (21%) to the NAN sample. Only two questions (5.1%) referred to aparticular eventin the NAN sample, whiletype of eventdid not occur at all.
Aboutness Context All(n=467) BArch (n=345) NAN (n=131)
Events 109 23% 70 20% 39 30%
- Events [ any ] 1 0.9% 1 1.4% 0
-- Events [ particular activity ] 75 69% 46 66% 29 74%
- Events [ type of activity ] 31 28% 23 33% 8 21%
- Events [ particular event ] 2 1.8% 0 - 2 5.1%
- Events [ type of event ] 0 - 0 - 0
-Table 11– Occurrences of the general patternEvents. Note that percentages for the primary entities of interest are per current general pattern.
The figures indicate the importance of questions generally pertaining to the context of events and activities, specifically to particular activities, and to a lesser degree types of activities.
Summary TheEventspattern distinguishes between unintentional events and intentional acts carried out by actors such as persons or groups. Both can be described in their temporal and spatial contexts, where and when an activity happened and who participated. Complex activities are described by the relevant and fundamental relationships of influence, sequence, and part-whole. The pattern thus allows us to model basic activity-centred history. The pattern covers questions such as: What happened and how did an activity or event occur? What happened to persons or groups? Who acted and how? When and where did these activities and events happen?
The pattern focuses on requests for archival material which may provide evidence for the execution or existence of activities, or factual and descriptive accounts on the act structure of activities or events; that is, what happened and how.
The pattern is therefore assigned when a question inquires after information objects about historical activities, or documents which describe or otherwise give information or evidence on these activities.
While theEventspattern does allow us to ascertain a motivational or influential relationship between activities, it does not, however, represent a more detailed historical context of activities.
Inquiries about information objects that would provide information and evidence on reasons for activities, who enacted and desired them to be carried out, and whether or not activities adhered to the original plan, lie outside the scope of this pattern. The planning and wanting of activities, the will and the plan, are covered by the sub-patternPlans,described next.