Dear Stephen, George, all,
To make sure that we’re on the same page, if Rights are to be treated as
concepts rather than the legal application of the concept, then I can conceive
of the Right that I personally own Van Gogh’s “Irises”. Not even that I am
claiming to own the painting, just the notion of a theoretical ownership. I can
write that down on a piece of paper and sneak it into our archive, ensuring
that there is at least one carrier of this Right. Thus, I could legitimately
assert the existence of a Right, which applies to Irises and is possessed by me
… correct? And the creation of the idea is unrelated to the claimed period
over which the rights are asserted to be possessed – I can conceive of my
ownership lasting precisely 15 minutes, in the future. So the utility of
“Right” as a class is very limited – it has nothing to do with the actual legal
right of ownership (despite the scope note), it is instead an idea of ownership
that makes no claim about reality.
If this is a correct understanding, it would be good to update the scope notes
for E30 to clarify that it’s not the actual legal privileges in any meaningful
sense.
The full extent of what we’re trying to capture is the situation where
different parties have (legally or just by agreement between them) hold
different shares in the object. For example, a partial gift to a museum, where
the value transfers over time from the donor to the museum (for tax reasons,
one imagines), or for situations where art dealers collaborate to purchase an
object, and then share the profits of sale in the same proportions (a good
example of distinct ownership versus physical custody!).
In order to capture the proportion of ownership as a Dimension, we were very
happy that has_dimension has a domain of Thing … and thus can be used with
Conceptual Object and Right. Right can be partitioned with has component from
E89. Thus:
_:r1 a Right ;
applies_to <painting> ;
possessed_by <group> ;
has_component [
a Right ;
has_dimension [
a Dimension ;
has_value 70 ;
has_unit <percentage> ] ;
possessed_by <member1> ] ,
[
a Right ;
has_dimension [
a Dimension ;
has_value 30 ;
has_unit <percentage> ;
possessed_by <member2> ] .
<group> a Group ;
has_current_or_former_member <member1>, <member2> .
Thus, to avoid the transfer of a Right (which cannot be modeled, per previous
discussions), we create and destroy hierarchical Rights similar to the example
above.
I agree with George that a new property to assert that the [notion of the]
Right applies over a particular timespan would be the easiest solution. Then
has_type can be used to distinguish between actually legal Rights, and ones
that are not legally valid or binding. This would also make the sale of stolen
objects significantly easier to model – it is the creation of a Right, with a
has_type for its illegal status, that applies during the period until the item
is discovered to have been stolen.
In terms of activities, I don’t think that quite fits, even with the
problematic-in-RDF P16.1. I could assert that Stephen possesses the
reproduction rights for the Mona Lisa … that doesn’t imply that Stephen carried
out any activity.
Rob
On 8/15/17, 4:42 AM, "Stephen Stead" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Rob, George and all,
George is absolutely correct that the right is the conceptual object of the
right itself regardless of whether it is current or not. I do not agree that we
need some new link from the right to time. The simple construct is to use an E7
Activity that uses a specific object (P16) (The right) and has a participant
Actor in a specific role. If the right is on another object then that object is
also a used specific object (remember P16.1 mode of use is also available). I
think this covers the scenarios that Rob is trying to deal with but would be
very interested to see if there are other problem situations.
TTFN
SdS
Stephen Stead
Tel +44 20 8668 3075
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail [email protected]
LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/
-----Original Message-----
From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George
Bruseker
Sent: 15 August 2017 09:08
To: Robert Sanderson <[email protected]>
Cc: crm-sig ([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] End of Existence for Rights?
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
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
