Interoperable Europe logo

Event - assotiation with Agent

Anonymous (not verified)
Published on: 18/04/2016 Discussion Archived

Description

The business event and life event classes could be associated to an Agent including appliesTo as property in the event.

 

Proposed solution

Add an association between the class "Business Event" and "Agent".

 

Open questions

Feedback from the Working Group on the necessity of this association. It was raised during the first webinar. The WG did not achieve any resolution as the time was over.

Component

Documentation

Category

feature
Report abusive content Invite Share

Comments

philarcher (not verified) Thu, 21/04/2016 - 10:53

Hi Ana,

 

Sorry but I beg to differ - but mildly. Yes, we talked about this at some length and it was resolved that no such association should be included. The minutes include:

 

" RESOLVED: the working group agrees on not adding a relation between the agent class and the event class." (see bottom of page 4). 

 

The argument for this was although there are, of course, an unlimited number of events in an individual's life, the CPSV is *only* concerned with those that have an associated Public Service. To explain this, I include the following sentence in the definition fo a Life Event:

 

"In the context of the CPSV-AP, the Life Event class only represents an event for which a Public Service is related. For example, a couple becoming engaged is not a CPSV-AP Life Event, getting married is, since only the latter has any relevance to public services."

Therefore, the link from an Event to an Agent can always be made via the Public Service itself (Agent -> uses -> Public Service <- Related Service <- Life Event).

Of course as new services are described, so too can Events be.

 

However

It is clear that we're a little short of full consensus on this so I agree that we should  return to the issue in the next call. The minutes only summarise the conversation. The chatlog has a bit more and I've copied the relevant section below for reference.

 
 
Ana Fernandez de Soria - PwC: (Yannis) there should be an attribute indicating who the event applies to.
 
Michiel De Keyzer - PwC 2: Phil, we don't see your screen
 
Nikos Loutas, PwC: @Yannis: applies to as a property to indicate the target audience of a life or business event sounds like a good idea 
 
PhilA: I'm not sharing my screen
 ------------- (04/12/2016 10:34) ------------- 
Nicola Guarino - CNR, Italy: I suggest "being the subject of" instead of "applies to". Business are the subject of business events, physical persons are the subject of lfe events
 
Michiel De Keyzer - PwC 2: YC: need a relation between the agent class en the evnt class, this will allow to specialise to which groups of businesses or citizens the event applies to
 
Yannis Charalabidis - Greece: On life / business events attributes: appliesTo (pointing to a subcategory of Agent) and followedBy (giving us the opportunity to construct "series" of events)
 
Michiel De Keyzer - PwC 2: TT: we need to be caerful here. a public service relates to an event and and a public service is already linked to an agent
 
Giorgia Lodi (AgID): +1
 
Antonio Rotundo (AgID): +1 TT
 
Nicola Guarino - CNR, Italy: It is not very clear to say that an event *consists* of public services. Rather, the event *may require* some public services
 
Michiel De Keyzer - PwC 2: TT: so indirectly the link between a business event and a public service
 
Eva Christina Andersson: no sound?
 ------------- (04/12/2016 10:39) ------------- 
Marko Latvanen, Suomi.fi, Finland: Eva: same happened here. I got out and got back in, that solved it
 ------------- (04/12/2016 10:40) ------------- 
Thomas: Have to run & leave now, but I'll be on the issue tracker - beware we're describing public services in essence and not the relation between events and agents
 
Eva Christina Andersson: Ok  thank you  now  it  works 
 
Thomas: Bye everyone; till next time
 
Michiel De Keyzer - PwC 2: thanks Thomas!
 
Marco Combetto (Dati.Trentino.it): did as well here.. out/in
 
Nicola Guarino - CNR, Italy: I object to this. The kind of event is independent from the kind of service
 
Michiel De Keyzer - PwC 2: YC: life events exist, independent from public services
 
Nicola Guarino - CNR, Italy: *1 to Michiel
 
Marco Combetto (Dati.Trentino.it): + 1 Michiel
 
Hans Ekstål 2: When we eventually use the model for events, can we see the relationships between companies and citizens. Ex. what is the relationship between bankruptcy and illness?
 
Nikos Loutas, PwC: very good point Themis +1
 
Ana Fernandez de Soria - PwC: Themis: how to define BE? they have to be related to the public sector
 
Yannis Charalabidis - Greece: -> Themis: yes, but how NEW services are being conceived / developed ?
 
Ana Fernandez de Soria - PwC: Themis: legal actions and special situations can change a life event to be related to public services or not
 
Nicola Guarino - CNR, Italy: I definitely insist on the independence between services and events
 
Nikos Loutas, PwC: Nicolas, they are modelled independently and exist independently, but this does not mean that they cannot be linked/related somehow 
 
Themis TAMBOURIS, University of Macedonia, Greece: It is a matter of definition at the end of the day. but before modeling, a definition is essential in my view. 
 
Antonio Rotundo (AgID): +1 to Nikos
 
Giorgia Lodi (AgID): +1 Themis
 
PhilA: PROPOSED: That events that are unrelated to services are out of scope for the CPSV-AP
 
Marko Latvanen, Suomi.fi, Finland: +1
 
Risto (Estonia): +1
 
Joseph - Malta: +1
 
Mikael Österlund: +1
 
Nikos Loutas, PwC: Phil to be even more concrete, we are talking about *public* services
 
Werner: +1
 
Dita Gabaliņa, Latvia, VARAM: +1
 
Nikos Loutas, PwC: +1 
 
Giorgia Lodi (AgID): +1
 
Hans Ekstål 2: -1
 
Dita Gabaliņa, Latvia, VARAM: However they can be helpful for categorization of life events
 
Eva Christina Andersson: +1
 
Marco Aarts: +1
 
Themis TAMBOURIS, University of Macedonia, Greece: +1
 
Neven Vrček 2: +1
 
Dita Gabaliņa, Latvia, VARAM: and for future public services planning as well
 
Giorgia Lodi (AgID): I guess we need a definition and examples 
 
Ana Fernandez de Soria - PwC: Nicola: in the CPSV the relation between events and service is groupedBy. The life events may require the head of a public service
 ------------- (04/12/2016 10:51) ------------- 
Marko Latvanen, Suomi.fi, Finland: In a service data model, an event has to be widely recognized in society and conceptually defined to make any sense as a class or parameter. Any random event in someoone's life cannot as such be a life event in the context of a data model discussed here.
 
Ana Fernandez de Soria - PwC: Hans: we need to agree on the level of the events definition
 ------------- (04/12/2016 10:52) ------------- 
Nicola Guarino - CNR, Italy: A possibility could be to consider events as *triggers* of a service
 
Hans Ekstål 2: If it is an oportunity tho describe that later, so yes +1
 
Ana Fernandez de Soria - PwC: Phil: As a summary, an event has to be related to a PS. There are relationships between services and events. We are building a catalogue of services.
 ------------- (04/12/2016 10:54) ------------- 
Nikos Loutas, PwC: Giorgia indeed. Implementation experiences are at the very core of the revision of the CPSV-AP
 
PhilA: Hans, changed mind, OK with proposal as events can be added later when they become relevant to a service
 ------------- (04/12/2016 10:56) ------------- 
PhilA: RESOLVED: That events that are unrelated to services are out of scope for the CPSV-AP
 
Ana Fernandez de Soria - PwC: Girogia: We need to define the meaning of event. It should be related to a PS, not an event in general
 ------------- (04/12/2016 10:57) ------------- 
PhilA: PROPOSED: That we do not need to introduce a relationshop between Event and Agent
 
Michiel De Keyzer - PwC 2: +1
 
Werner: +1
 
Marko Latvanen, Suomi.fi, Finland: +1
 
Antonio Rotundo (AgID): +1
 
Giorgia Lodi (AgID): +1
 
Risto (Estonia): +1
 
Eva Christina Andersson: +1
 
Hans Ekstål 2: +1
 
PhilA: I can't hear anything now
 
Yannis Charalabidis - Greece: -1 (this limits the transformative nature of our exercise) and also (sometimes a service is used by a different person than that the event is referring to)
 
Ana Fernandez de Soria - PwC: Nicola: either we get rid of events completely, or we include all type of events, with a subject with the type of person
 
PhilA: Michiel, I've lost all sound and we're out of time. Back to you
 
Themis TAMBOURIS, University of Macedonia, Greece: I think we might need to think a bot more on that before voting 
 
Ana Fernandez de Soria - PwC: We are out of time, but the discussions can continue on Joinup and/or the mailing list. 
philarcher (not verified) Thu, 21/04/2016 - 11:26
Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 23/05/2016 - 16:11

+1 for Phil

philarcher (not verified) Thu, 09/06/2016 - 11:52

The meeting on 24/5/16 resolved not to include the relationship between Event and Agent. The minutes are ambiguous on whether the addition of the CCEV's Criterion class was agreed but it was part of the justification for not addin the relationship and so is taken as resolved, i.e. the CCCEV's Criterion class has been added to cover the issues discussed in this thread.

Login or create an account to comment.