Completely agreed, Christian-Emil!
This ties into another thread from earlier this year about Payments – the
transfer of a MonetaryAmount between Actors.
It would be great to have a consistent model that covered all of the transfer
of X activities!
Rob
On 8/22/17, 11:43 AM, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore" <c.e.s....@iln.uio.no> wrote:
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 RightSubclass 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
