Differentiate goesToAgent/comesFromAgent and hasRecipient/hasGiver

[kstudzin]

Modify definitions and add examples

Closes #1024

[uscholdm]

This is quite tricky. Sometimes there is no reason to have both a giver and a comes from agent, nor both a recipient and a goes to agent. In these cases, and it may not matter which to use, hence the original confusion, but we should give some guidance if possible. I would say if either seems appropriate, then use hasGiver or hasRecipient instead of the to/form agent properties. Shipment is a good example where there could be multiple parties. Let’s say a purchasing department orders a new printer and it is shipped using a third party.

• Company that placed the order and who will receive the goods (recipient)
• The agent the package is addressed to who will pass it along to the recipient (goes to agent)
• The company that ships the package (comes from agent)
• The company that is having the printer shipped (hasGiver)

In this example there might not be a separate goes to agent.

Also, I suggest that all 4 properties have a domainIncludes gist:Event

[rjyounes]

Also, I suggest that all 4 properties have a domainIncludes gist:Event

I don't think of Event as the likeliest domain for goesTo/comesFrom.

[rjyounes]

This issue has not been triaged yet, and I think as a group we need to come to some understanding of what the differences are meant to be. Moving to draft state.

[uscholdm]

Also, I suggest that all 4 properties have a domainIncludes gist:Event

I don't think of Event as the likeliest domain for goesTo/comesFrom.

Its the only one I could think of right away, what are the obvious ones that come to mind for you?

[rjyounes]

Its the only one I could think of right away, what are the obvious ones that come to mind for you?

As the definitions say, I think of shipment, package, letter, etc., which we don't have classes for. I don't see any reason that we must have a domainIncludes value, so if nothing fits the bill I'd leave it off.

[uscholdm]

As the definitions say, I think of shipment, package, letter, etc., which we don't have classes for. I don't see any reason that we must have a domainIncludes value, so if nothing fits the bill I'd leave it off.

@rjyounes Shipment is an event; if a package or letter goes anywhere, that is an event, which is always a correct way to model a 'going'. One need not always, model the event explicitly. But I cannot think of a single example of using goesToAgent where there is no event going on (so to speak) - can you?

[rjyounes]

Oh, I see, I hadn't been thinking of the events - I was thinking of the objects being shipped and delivered. The locution seems odd in ordinary English - "the event of shipping the package goes to Tom" as opposed to "the package goes to Tom." The distinctions you make above between those who handle goods in passing them from the "ultimate" giver to the "ultimate" recipient are clear, but it's not at all clear to me how we decide which set of predicates goes with which. One pair of agents are the "intermediate" givers and recipients, the other are the "ultimate" ones. I have no clue why one is "comesFrom/goesTo" and the other is "giver/recipient." Do you? Do we need to rethink our wording choices?

[uscholdm]

Oh, I see, I hadn't been thinking of the events - I was thinking of the objects being shipped and delivered. The locution seems odd in ordinary English - "the event of shipping the package goes to Tom" as opposed to "the package goes to Tom." The distinctions you make above between those who handle goods in passing them from the "ultimate" giver to the "ultimate" recipient are clear, but it's not at all clear to me how we decide which set of predicates goes with which. One pair of agents are the "intermediate" givers and recipients, the other are the "ultimate" ones. I have no clue why one is "comesFrom/goesTo" and the other is "giver/recipient." Do you? Do we need to rethink our wording choices?

Those are all excellent points, the locution is not good- the event does not go to the agent, the package does. But changing the wording will only work if we are rock solid on what we are trying to say - we may not be. Intermediate vs. ultimate may or may not be exactly what we want. There may be too many variations of this. I wonder if anyone ever used the comesToAgent and goesToAgent properties? I wonder if we should just remove them. Maybe a gist dev group discussion?

[uscholdm]

Its a bit unclear what the intended domain of these 4 properties should be.

[rjyounes]

So far I've commented in detail only on one of the properties, comesFromAgent, and I recommend similar updates for the others. I can re-review once those have been made.

[uscholdm]

We are nearly there - tough nut to crack. I 'm thinking maybe replace

• In general, this property is used in abstract contexts with
• This property is often used in abstract contexts

The former may be too strong, but that would mean rephrasing uses of 'typically' such as

• gist:hasGiver is typically used in more abstract contexts such as agreements, obligations, contract
  We may be better off leaving it as it is.

[kstudzin]

@uscholdm I made that change - let me know what you think

[rjyounes]

Nicely done!

[rjyounes]

@kstudzin This PR has been approved but conflicts with the base branch must be resolved before merge.