Robert I am unclear how your thought experiment of "conceiving" of a right fits into the definition of an instance of E30 Right as a "legal privilege". Is your experiment is to consider what we might do about contested knowledge about instances of E30 Right; to consider fraudulent instances of rights that might be represented in knowledge systems as instances of E30 Right or as the basis of defining a new class or classes? If the later do you have any examples from documentation systems that we could draw on?
To aid my understanding of your sample snippets could you include the Class and Property identifiers. The sample for the lament cloth (from the website) is very clear, if a little more verbose, but would make your examples easier to follow for me. Your assertion that an instance of E39 Actor P105R has right on E22 Man Made Object implies that you believe that instance of E39 Actor did perform the activity of holding the right and this can then be represented with an instance of E7 Activity. The case of you believing this statement to be untrue is dealt with using CRMinf. Rgds SdS PS Representing this in RDF is an implementation issue not a modelling one and the SIG has given guidance on possible Open and Closed World resolutions to the problem. Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail ste...@paveprime.com LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/ -----Original Message----- From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:rsander...@getty.edu] Sent: 15 August 2017 17:23 To: ste...@paveprime.com; 'George Bruseker' <bruse...@ics.forth.gr> Cc: 'crm-sig' <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>; David Newbury <dnewb...@getty.edu> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] End of Existence for Rights? Dear Stephen, George, all, To make sure that we’re on the same page, if Rights are to be treated as concepts rather than the legal application of the concept, then I can conceive of the Right that I personally own Van Gogh’s “Irises”. Not even that I am claiming to own the painting, just the notion of a theoretical ownership. I can write that down on a piece of paper and sneak it into our archive, ensuring that there is at least one carrier of this Right. Thus, I could legitimately assert the existence of a Right, which applies to Irises and is possessed by me … correct? And the creation of the idea is unrelated to the claimed period over which the rights are asserted to be possessed – I can conceive of my ownership lasting precisely 15 minutes, in the future. So the utility of “Right” as a class is very limited – it has nothing to do with the actual legal right of ownership (despite the scope note), it is instead an idea of ownership that makes no claim about reality. If this is a correct understanding, it would be good to update the scope notes for E30 to clarify that it’s not the actual legal privileges in any meaningful sense. The full extent of what we’re trying to capture is the situation where different parties have (legally or just by agreement between them) hold different shares in the object. For example, a partial gift to a museum, where the value transfers over time from the donor to the museum (for tax reasons, one imagines), or for situations where art dealers collaborate to purchase an object, and then share the profits of sale in the same proportions (a good example of distinct ownership versus physical custody!). In order to capture the proportion of ownership as a Dimension, we were very happy that has_dimension has a domain of Thing … and thus can be used with Conceptual Object and Right. Right can be partitioned with has component from E89. Thus: _:r1 a Right ; applies_to <painting> ; possessed_by <group> ; has_component [ a Right ; has_dimension [ a Dimension ; has_value 70 ; has_unit <percentage> ] ; possessed_by <member1> ] , [ a Right ; has_dimension [ a Dimension ; has_value 30 ; has_unit <percentage> ; possessed_by <member2> ] . <group> a Group ; has_current_or_former_member <member1>, <member2> . Thus, to avoid the transfer of a Right (which cannot be modeled, per previous discussions), we create and destroy hierarchical Rights similar to the example above. I agree with George that a new property to assert that the [notion of the] Right applies over a particular timespan would be the easiest solution. Then has_type can be used to distinguish between actually legal Rights, and ones that are not legally valid or binding. This would also make the sale of stolen objects significantly easier to model – it is the creation of a Right, with a has_type for its illegal status, that applies during the period until the item is discovered to have been stolen. In terms of activities, I don’t think that quite fits, even with the problematic-in-RDF P16.1. I could assert that Stephen possesses the reproduction rights for the Mona Lisa … that doesn’t imply that Stephen carried out any activity. Rob On 8/15/17, 4:42 AM, "Stephen Stead" <ste...@paveprime.com> wrote: Dear Rob, George and all, George is absolutely correct that the right is the conceptual object of the right itself regardless of whether it is current or not. I do not agree that we need some new link from the right to time. The simple construct is to use an E7 Activity that uses a specific object (P16) (The right) and has a participant Actor in a specific role. If the right is on another object then that object is also a used specific object (remember P16.1 mode of use is also available). I think this covers the scenarios that Rob is trying to deal with but would be very interested to see if there are other problem situations. TTFN SdS Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail ste...@paveprime.com LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/ -----Original Message----- From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of George Bruseker Sent: 15 August 2017 09:08 To: Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu> Cc: crm-sig (Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr) <Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] End of Existence for Rights? Dear Rob et al., I would say that the modelling of conceptual object and its begin/end relation is correct also in this instance. It is not the existence of the right qua concept that terminates when the right over something expires. I would argue that the right can exist before it comes into validity or goes out of it. A right qua power over x lasts as long as its validity. We seem to have an equivocation of what we want to invoke by this class, the right qua concept or qua power over. Might want to think more about the scope note. But modelling wise, I think it might be addressed by having a new property for validity period which would define the limits of the right qua power and be distinct from its existence. As an example to support my case, I would say that Michael Jackson’s Right over the Beatles Catalogue from 1985-2006 continues to exist qua conceptual object to this very moment (there are many carriers of this idea and we are referring to it now), but its validity period has definitely expired and is more or less known. Other ideas? Best, George > On Aug 15, 2017, at 12:44 AM, Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > We are looking to express a Right that applies to an Object, such as Ownership. As the Right only applies for a limited duration, we had though to create the Right as part of the Acquisition of the Object and then to have it be taken out of existence by the subsequent Acquisition. Thus the Right, which as previously discussed is specific to the people and objects involved, would only be documented as existing when the specific people actually own the Object. > > However, Rights are Conceptual Objects, which state in their scope notes: > >> They [Conceptual Objects] cannot be destroyed. They exist as long as they can be found on at least one carrier or in at least one human memory. Their existence ends when the last carrier and the last memory are lost > > So although Rights are Persistent Items and can thus have an End of Existence, the scope note for Conceptual Object clarifies that they only actually have an End of Existence when there is no memory of them. This means for all practical purposes that it can never be used, as if there is no memory of it, then there could be no description in CRM of it. > > This means that we cannot ascribe an end to the Right without ignoring the scope notes for Conceptual Object? Or is there another method to provide time-limited scope to the application of the legal privileges that the E30 embodies? > > Many thanks, > > Rob > > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
