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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
