You point to a part of CRM which, in my view, need more work:
There is a relationship between E9 Move, E10 Transfer of Custody, E8 Acquisition and the respective properties P53 has former or current location (is former or current location of) P49 has former or current keeper (is former or current keeper of): E39 Actor P51 has former or current owner (is former or current owner of): E39 Actor exemplified by P53 has former or current location (is former or current location of) is a shortcut. A more detailed representation can make use of the fully developed (i.e. indirect) path from ‘E19 Physical Object’, though, ‘P25i moved by’, ‘E9 Move’, ‘P26 moved to’ or ‘P27 moved from’, to ‘ E53 Place’. There is no separate class and properties for giving somebody a right (privilege). That is, E21 Actor P75 possesses (is possessed by) E30 Right is not a shortcut. P75 possesses (is possessed by) is a super property of P52 has current owner (is current owner of). Shouldn’t there also be a P75’ possessed or possesses which could be a superclass of P51 has former or current owner (is former or current owner of)? That would solve the inconsistency you point to. Since we make ownership explicit in the model, should there be a sub class of E30 Right called Exx Ownership? Best, Christian-Emil ________________________________ From: David Newbury <dnewb...@getty.edu> Sent: 22 August 2017 17:02 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore; João Oliveira Lima Cc: Robert Sanderson; George Bruseker; crm-sig Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] End of Existence for Rights? Take, for example, the case where I own a house. I rent the house to Jane, who is given the legal privilege to occupy the house for a year. This privilege applies regardless of whether of not she chooses to occupy that house. At the end of the year, the lease is not renewed, and I lease the house to John for another year. The conceptual privilege, which is to say the right to occupy the house, could be considered the same across both rental terms. However, without a mechanism to assign temporal duration to the holding of that right, I’m left with Occupancy a E30_Right; P104_Applies_to <My House>; P2_has_type <Residential Lease>; P75_is_held_by <John>; P75_is_held_by <Jane>. Which appears to state that the right is held by both simultaneously, which is inaccurate. This will be important not only for rights which are shared or assigned, but also for rights that are limited by time—if I apply for a patent on a better mousetrap, in the US that patent is granted for 17 years. The Propositional Object (that knowledge and assertion that there was a patent) endures, but the privilege granted by holding of the right is valid for only 17 years. After that, the right is merely a historical fact. I agree that E30_Right represents a conceptual object, and as such should be a Propositional Object. However, I feel that the specific holding of that privilege should be considered a entity that can be transferred as an event, much like states of Custody or Ownership are currently transferred using E10_Transfer_of_Custody or E18_Transfer_of_Ownership. That would make P75_is_held_by more like P51_has_former_or_current_owner, in that it explicitly does not express the temporal constraints as a shortcut for a yet-undefined longer path. — David David Newbury Enterprise Software Architect, Getty Digital Email: dnewb...@getty.edu Phone: (310) 440-6116 From: Christian-Emil Smith Ore <c.e.s....@iln.uio.no> Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 5:56 AM To: João Oliveira Lima <joaol...@gmail.com> Cc: Robert Sanderson <rsander...@getty.edu>, George Bruseker <bruse...@ics.forth.gr>, crm-sig <crm-sig@ics.forth.gr>, David Newbury <dnewb...@getty.edu> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] End of Existence for Rights? Dear all, Sorry for the somewhat confused and unclear email. I have reread the emails. In his email from Monday 21 August 2017 14:30, George explains what I meant – I think. The intention of introducing right in CRM was to be able to express information about IPRs and ownership found in museum databases. It is, however, a difficult topic. The example phrase “copyright held by ISO on ISO/CD 21127” in the definition of E30 right has different implications for the possibility to use of the text in different countries depending on the local legislation. In international business contracts it is usually stated which legislation should be used in court if disagreement occurs. In the emails the term ‘ownership’ is frequently referred to. What is meant by ‘ownership’ (that is, which privileges it gives the owner) will also vary depending on the culture/legislation. As it has been mentioned “right” is an overloaded word. The scope note defines it as ‘legal privilege’. A law is not a legal privilege. One may obtain a legal privilege as a result of applying/referring to a law. OED definition 2.a for privilege: “A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by an individual, corporation of individuals, etc., beyond the usual rights or advantages of others; spec. (a) an exemption from a normal duty, liability, etc.; (b) enjoyment of some benefit (as wealth, education, standard of living, etc.) above the average or that deemed usual or necessary for a particular group (in pl. sometimes contrasted with rights).” Thus the scope note is ok. But an instance of E30 Right is not a law. Is a privilege a propositional object and/or is it created as a consequence of a propositional object? A person can obtain a privilege at some time and may lose it later. The privilege as such is independent of the number of persons it is granted to. Under this interpretation a privilege can be modelled as a sub class of conceptual object as it is in the current CRM. Identity criteria may be difficult to find. Even though the name is the same, ownership is not neccessarily the same in different cultures. E30 Right Subclass of: E89<https://mail.uio.no/owa/#_E89_Propositional_Object> Propositional Object Scope Note: This class comprises legal privileges concerning material and immaterial things or their derivatives. These include reproduction and property rights. Examples: § copyright held by ISO on ISO/CD 21127 § ownership of the “Mona Lisa” by the Louvre ________________________________ From: João Oliveira Lima <joaol...@gmail.com> Sent: 22 August 2017 12:20 To: Christian-Emil Smith Ore Cc: Robert Sanderson; George Bruseker; crm-sig; David Newbury Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] End of Existence for Rights? Dear Christian-Emil and Robert, Perhaps the Institutional Theory of Law has ideas to come up with an answer to your question and to the question that started this thread. Influenced by the Philosophy of Language, by J. Searle and J. Austin, the legal neo-institutionalism brought new light to the concept of "legal institution". According to Neil MacComick, "a 'institution of law' is a legal concept which are regulated by sets of institutive, consequential and terminative rules" ("Enn Normative Description" isA "E29 Design of Procedure") "with the effect that instances of them are properly said to exist over a period of time, from the occurrence of an institutive act or event until the occurrence of a terminative act or event" (so, "Enn Legal Institution" is a "E4 Period"). The term "right" has a semantic overload. It is necessary to differentiate "right-claim/duty" as an atomic relation between two people (in the hohfeldian sense) as well as "right" as an instance of a legal institution (ex: property right). Property right consists of a bunch of atomic rights (claims, power, immunity, privileges). Kind Regards, João Alberto de Oliveira Lima
