Dear all,

In the last CRM SIG (47) we discussed issue 475
<http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-475-transfer-of-custody> which has to do
with a change to the scope note of E10 Transfer of Custody. R. Sanderson
noted that the scope note seemed to contain a contradiction since the first
line indicated that the transfer of custody was of 'physical possession'
while the second paragraph indicated that it could be of physical
possession OR only of legal custody.

R. Sanderson proposed to update the scope note in order to consistently
express that the base line case is that BOTH physical and legal custody are
transferred and in the case that it is only one or the other this would be
expressed using the p2 has type property.

This proposal was generally accepted and the work of creating the precise
wording was left as homework. This HW has been provided by R Sanderson and
is in a good state for voting on.

Please find below the text of the old and the new scope note. After having
read them, please vote by replying to this email whether to accept this
change.

You may vote Yes, Yes with a caveat or No, indicating the reason for
rejecting the proposal.

Please indicate your vote by October 16th.

Changes marked in *blue*
-----

*OLD scope note*

*E10 Transfer of Custody *

Subclass of: E7 Activity

Scope note: This class comprises transfers of physical custody of objects
between instances of E39 Actor. The recording of the donor and/or recipient
is optional. It is possible that in an instance of E10 Transfer of Custody
there is either no donor or no recipient. Depending on the circumstances it
may describe:

1. the beginning of custody

2. the end of custody

3. the transfer of custody

4. the receipt of custody from an unknown source

5. the declared loss of an object

The distinction between the legal responsibility for custody and the actual
physical possession of the object should be expressed using the property P2
has type (is type of). A specific case of transfer of custody is theft. The
sense of physical possession requires that the object of custody is in the
hands of the keeper at least with a part representative for the whole. The
way, in which a representative part is defined, should ensure that it is
unambiguous who keeps a part and who the whole and should be consistent
with the identity criteria of the kept instance of E18 Physical Thing. For
instance, in the case of a set of cutlery we may require the majority of
pieces having been in the hands of the actor regardless which individual
pieces are kept over time.

The interpretation of the museum notion of "accession" differs between
institutions. The CIDOC CRM therefore models legal ownership and physical
custody separately. Institutions will then model their specific notions of
accession and deaccession as combinations of these.

Examples:

   - the delivery of the paintings by Secure Deliveries Inc. to the
   National Gallery the return of Picasso’s “Guernica” to Madrid’s Prado in
   1981 (Chipp, 1988)

In First Order Logic:

E10(x) ⊃ E7(x)

Properties:

P28 custody surrendered by (surrendered custody through): E39 Actor

P29 custody received by (received custody through): E39 Actor

P30 transferred custody of (custody transferred through): E18 Physical Thing

*NEW scope note*

*E10 Transfer of Custody *

Subclass of: E7 Activity

Scope note: This class comprises transfers of the physical custody, or the
legal responsibility for the physical custody, of objects. The recording of
the donor or recipient is optional. It is possible that in an instance of
E10 Transfer of Custody there is either no donor or no recipient. Depending
on the circumstances it may describe:

1. the beginning of custody (there is no previous custodian)

2. the end of custody (there is no subsequent custodian)

3. the transfer of custody (transfer from one custodian to the next)

4. the receipt of custody from an unknown source (the previous custodian is
unknown)

5. the declared loss of an object (the current or subsequent custodian is
unknown)

In the event that only a single kind of transfer of custody, either the
legal responsibility for the custody or the actual physical possession of
the object but not both, this difference should be expressed using the
property P2 has type (is type of).  A specific case of transfer of custody
is theft. The sense of physical possession requires that the object of
custody is in the hands of the keeper at least with a part representative
for the whole. The way, in which a representative part is defined, should
ensure that it is unambiguous who keeps a part and who the whole and should
be consistent with the identity criteria of the kept instance of E18
Physical Thing. For instance, in the case of a set of cutlery we may
require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of the actor
regardless which individual pieces are kept over time.

The interpretation of the museum notion of "accession" differs between
institutions. The CIDOC CRM therefore models legal ownership and physical
custody separately. Institutions will then model their specific notions of
accession and deaccession as combinations of these.

Examples:

   - the delivery of the paintings by Secure Deliveries Inc. to the
   National Gallery the return of Picasso’s “Guernica” to Madrid’s Prado in
   1981 (Chipp, 1988)

In First Order Logic:

E10(x) ⇒ E7(x)

Properties:

P28 custody surrendered by (surrendered custody through): E39 Actor

P29 custody received by (received custody through): E39 Actor

P30 transferred custody of (custody transferred through): E18 Physical Thing



Sincerely,

George Bruseker
Vice-Chair CIDOC CRM SIG
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig

Reply via email to