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 Right Subclass 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 <[email protected]> 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
