Re: [Crm-sig] Rights model

2017-03-01 Thread martin 

Dear All,

I more or less agree with all of you. The rights model in the CRM is 
based on evidence from museum documentation so far. It is highly 
simplified. It is an attempt to achieve a reasonable recall where to 
look for rights holders. The temporal validity is undefined, and could 
be sought in the property, which does, as all CRM properties, not 
specify a validity time, but in principle could. If we accept that the 
"right holding" is the property, then the right itself is an expression 
of a sort of a contract. Right holders on museum objects may require 
very idiosyncratic conditions. Therefore we did not analyze the 
structure in more detail.


Modelling the legal world has not been an explicit scope of the CRM so 
far. I would not at all argue against it, but if their is enough 
interest in doing it seriously, we would need a relevant use case and 
scope to limit the effort and someone willing to work on a proper 
extension.


My opinion is, that rights and laws can be perceived as plans that are 
activated by event patterns. Event patterns are ugly to model.


There are laws regulating rights, and laws egulating laws about rights. 
There is a lot of literature about rights ontologies,
here one from my lab: 
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-04346-8_32


Any serious volunteers?

Otherwise, by a change of interpretation we could assign the temporality 
to the E30 Right, and then link the contract itself to this entity. If 
that solves the relevant questions in the domains we are interested in, 
that could be a straightforward issue proposal.


All the best,

Martin

On 1/3/2017 10:34 μμ, Simon Spero wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Robert Sanderson 
mailto:rsander...@getty.edu>> wrote:



Can I then transfer ownership of an E30 Right? No, as you transfer
ownership of Physical Things (E18), not of Propositional (E89),
Conceptual (E28), Man-Made (E71), Things (E70).


Such a limitation would not really match the way the law thinks of 
"Rights". "Rights" can be transferred separately from ownership of a 
physical thing.
For example, if you rent an apartment, the lease is a transfer of the 
"right" to occupy the premises from the landlord to you, without 
giving you ownership of the property.


I do agree that treating rights as propositions is somewhat 
problematic, as in order to be transferable, they would have in some 
sense to be self-referential, which can be the first step on the road 
to paradox (No offense intended to the Cretans on the list).


If we treat 'that' as a proposition forming operator, an alienable 
right r to reproduce a work w might be expressed as:


r = that[∀x.possess(x,r) → ◇reproduce(x,w)]

[where ◇ is the deontic handwaving operator]. This formulation does 
not express the ability to further transfer the right;  contexts can 
make things easier to express.



Simon


___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



--

--
 Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
 Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
   |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
 |
   Center for Cultural Informatics   |
   Information Systems Laboratory|
Institute of Computer Science|
   Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
 |
   N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece   |
 |
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl   |
--

Re: [Crm-sig] Rights model

2017-03-01 Thread Simon Spero 
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Robert Sanderson 
wrote:

>
> Can I then transfer ownership of an E30 Right? No, as you transfer
> ownership of Physical Things (E18), not of Propositional (E89), Conceptual
> (E28), Man-Made (E71), Things (E70).
>

Such a limitation would not really match the way the law thinks of
"Rights". "Rights" can be transferred separately from ownership of a
physical thing.
For example, if you rent an apartment, the lease is a transfer of the
"right" to occupy the premises from the landlord to you, without giving you
ownership of the property.

I do agree that treating rights as propositions is somewhat problematic, as
in order to be transferable, they would have in some sense to be
self-referential, which can be the first step on the road to paradox (No
offense intended to the Cretans on the list).

If we treat 'that' as a proposition forming operator, an alienable right r
to reproduce a work w might be expressed as:

r = that[∀x.possess(x,r) → ◇reproduce(x,w)]

[where ◇ is the deontic handwaving operator]. This formulation does not
express the ability to further transfer the right;  contexts can make
things easier to express.


Simon

Re: [Crm-sig] IFLA Governing Board has endorsed FRBRoo ver. 2.4

2017-03-01 Thread martin 

Dear Christine,

Also my congratulations! We are looking forward to continue promoting 
with you together semantic interoperability in the long term, without 
compromising precision, and we hope for more and more adoption by the 
communities. We are experiencing more and more FRBRoo applications in 
the scholarly discourse even beyond libraries. It appears to solves a 
quite general intellectual question.


All the best,

Martin

On 1/3/2017 5:14 μμ, Christine Oliver wrote:


Dear Colleagues of the CIDOC CRM SIG,

The IFLA FRBR Review Group is very happy to announce that FRBR_OO 
version 2.4_is now officially endorsed by the IFLA Governing Board. It 
has taken a bit of time to achieve this goal. But we finally got 
there, and just in time, as we begin to work on FRBR_OO version 3 this 
April.


The endorsement is dated December 2016, though there was a delay in 
informing us because a request from IFLA Governing Board was not 
relayed to us until yesterday. The IFLA website will be updated 
shortly. In the meantime, the text of FRBR_OO , ^version 2.4, ^at 
http://www.ifla.org/node/10171  
remains the same, except that the endorsement statement will be added.


Thank you very much to all the members of the CIDOC CRM SIG who 
assisted in the development of FRBR_OO version 2.4. A fruitful 
dialogue and I look forward to our future discussions as FRBR_OO 
continues to evolve.


Best wishes,

Chris

Chris Oliver

Chair, IFLA FRBR Review Group



___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig



--

--
 Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
 Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
   |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
 |
   Center for Cultural Informatics   |
   Information Systems Laboratory|
Institute of Computer Science|
   Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
 |
   N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece   |
 |
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl   |
--

Re: [Crm-sig] IFLA Governing Board has endorsed FRBRoo ver. 2.4

2017-03-01 Thread George Bruseker 
Dear all,

That is great news. Congratulations on the achievement! We will have to update 
on cidoc site as well accordingly.

Sincerely,

George

> On Mar 1, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Christine Oliver  
> wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues of the CIDOC CRM SIG,
>  
> The IFLA FRBR Review Group is very happy to announce that FRBROO version 2.4 
> is now officially endorsed by the IFLA Governing Board. It has taken a bit of 
> time to achieve this goal. But we finally got there, and just in time, as we 
> begin to work on FRBROO version 3 this April.
>  
> The endorsement is dated December 2016, though there was a delay in informing 
> us because a request from IFLA Governing Board was not relayed to us until 
> yesterday.The IFLA website will be updated shortly. In the meantime, the text 
> of FRBROO,  version 2.4,  at http://www.ifla.org/node/10171 
>  remains the same, except that the 
> endorsement statement will be added.
>  
> Thank you very much to all the members of the CIDOC CRM SIG who assisted in 
> the development of FRBROO version 2.4. A fruitful dialogue and I look forward 
> to our future discussions as FRBROO continues to evolve.
>  
> Best wishes,
>  
> Chris
>  
> Chris Oliver
> Chair, IFLA FRBR Review Group
> ___
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr 
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig 
>

[Crm-sig] IFLA Governing Board has endorsed FRBRoo ver. 2.4

2017-03-01 Thread Christine Oliver 
Dear Colleagues of the CIDOC CRM SIG,

The IFLA FRBR Review Group is very happy to announce that FRBROO version 2.4 is 
now officially endorsed by the IFLA Governing Board. It has taken a bit of time 
to achieve this goal. But we finally got there, and just in time, as we begin 
to work on FRBROO version 3 this April.

The endorsement is dated December 2016, though there was a delay in informing 
us because a request from IFLA Governing Board was not relayed to us until 
yesterday. The IFLA website will be updated shortly. In the meantime, the text 
of FRBROO,  version 2.4,  at http://www.ifla.org/node/10171 remains the same, 
except that the endorsement statement will be added.

Thank you very much to all the members of the CIDOC CRM SIG who assisted in the 
development of FRBROO version 2.4. A fruitful dialogue and I look forward to 
our future discussions as FRBROO continues to evolve.

Best wishes,

Chris

Chris Oliver
Chair, IFLA FRBR Review Group

Re: [Crm-sig] Rights model

2017-03-01 Thread Robert Sanderson 


Can I then transfer ownership of an E30 Right? No, as you transfer ownership of 
Physical Things (E18), not of Propositional (E89), Conceptual (E28), Man-Made 
(E71), Things (E70).
If Martin transferred copyright to a publisher … then Martin no longer 
possesses the instance of Copyrightness.  Or more familiarly, ownership … the 
right of ownership is transferred by an Acquisition. One could argue that 
custody is a Right. The JPG Museum has legal custody of Irises, and could 
transfer that right to another Museum for an Exhibition.

As soon as the Right is an instance of some specific class of Right, rather 
than the holding of it, we seem to crash headlong into the rest of the model 
whereby activities transfer rights to objects and model the current state of 
those rights.

On the other hand, if E30 were the Period of holding of the Right, it would fit 
in nicely.  The Acquisition transfers ownership of the object as always, and 
starts the period of ownership. The period of ownership is the holding of the 
right of ownership over the object… thereby completing our ternary relation of 
Right/Object/Actor.  Which can’t be otherwise expressed, as it is not an 
Activity (no intentional action) and Period/Event do not have appropriate links 
to objects/actors.  (P11 and P12 on Event are very weak compared to 
is_subject_to!)

If E30 were a subclass of E5 Event, and subject_to was sub property of P12i, 
and possesses P11i, these problems would go away :)

Rob


On 2/28/17, 12:22 PM, "Stephen Stead"  wrote:

Hi Robert
I may be splitting hairs here but my reading of your example wordings are 
not quite what is meant.
So for your Martin example my wording would be "The particular instance of 
copyright, on this particular thing, that is held by Martin" so it is not the 
act of holding that is represented by the class but the thing that is held. I 
hope that makes it clearer.
The query pattern looks correct to me.
CC licenses would, to my understanding, be types of E30 Right and so 
E30-P2-E55 would be correct.
Rgds
SdS

Stephen Stead
Tel +44 20 8668 3075 
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail ste...@paveprime.com
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads

-Original Message-
From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Robert 
Sanderson
Sent: 28 February 2017 19:50
To: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Cc: 'David Newbury' 
Subject: [Crm-sig] Rights model

Dear all,

Given the current model, I believe that E30 Right is an instance of the 
holding of a Right, rather than the concept of the Right itself?  For example, 
E30 is not “Copyright” or “Apache 2.0” or “Ownership” … it is “The holding of 
copyright of an object by Martin”, “the use of Apache 2.0 for some code by 
Rob”, or “Ownership of a house by Emma”.

If this is not intended to be the case, can someone provide an example in 
RDF (your serialization preference is fine) that demonstrates two different 
people holding two different rights over the same object?

Given that … we are expected to then use P2_has_type to refer to the sort 
of Right, and thus queries should look for: ?object P104_is_subject_to ?right . 
?right P2_has_type  .
If so, how would one refer to the Creative Commons licenses? Still with P2?

Many thanks!

Rob


Example of P104/P105/P75: 
{
  "@context": "https://linked.art/ns/context/1/full.jsonld;, 
  "@id": "https://linked.art/example/object/31;, 
  "@type": "crm:E22_Man-Made_Object", 
  "rdfs:label": "Object", 
  "crm:P104_is_subject_to": [
"https://linked.art/example/Right/0;, 
"https://linked.art/example/Right/1;
  ], 
  "crm:P105_right_held_by": [
{
  "@id": "https://linked.art/example/actor/6;, 
  "@type": "crm:E39_Actor", 
  "rdfs:label": "Owner", 
  "crm:P75_possesses": {
"@id": "https://linked.art/example/Right/0;, 
"@type": "crm:E30_Right", 
"rdfs:label": "Ownership Right by Owner of Object"
  }
}, 
{
  "@id": "https://linked.art/example/actor/7;, 
  "@type": "crm:E39_Actor", 
  "rdfs:label": "Holder", 
  "crm:P75_possesses": {
"@id": "https://linked.art/example/Right/1;, 
"@type": "crm:E30_Right", 
"rdfs:label": "Copyright by Holder of Object['s information object]"
  }
}
  ]
}


___
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig