Yes, I understand multiple instantiation (see previous discussion about Linguistic Object and Appellation, for example). Thus, if we want to avoid multiple instantiation as an anti-pattern for usability, we need to create a subclass that is both a LegalObject and a PropositionalObject. Fine.
I would argue that not every Physical Thing is a Legal Object. Interstellar dust is not a Legal Object. The water in international waters is not a legal object. And, yes, I hear the counter argument “That’s not in scope for the CRM so we don’t need to take it into account” Rob From: Stephen Stead <[email protected]> Organization: Paveprime Ltd Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 4:11 PM To: Robert Sanderson <[email protected]>, 'crm-sig' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Crm-sig] Intellectual Property Rights and E30 / E72 Hi Robert I think you may have misunderstood the hierarchy at this point. Being the parent class of E18 Physical Thing and E90 Symbolic Object does not preclude other things from being instances of E72 Legal Object, it merely states that all instances of E18 Physical Thing and all instances of E90 Symbolic Object are also, by inheritance, E72 Legal Objects. So there is nothing to stop an instance of, for example, E28 Conceptual Object being multiply instantiated as also being an instance of E72 Legal Object but, as is made clear in the scope note, not all instances of E28 Conceptual Object are necessarily also instances of E72 Legal Object. HTH SdS Stephen Stead Tel +44 20 8668 3075 Mob +44 7802 755 013 E-mail [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/ From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson Sent: 22 March 2018 20:18 To: crm-sig <[email protected]> Subject: [Crm-sig] Intellectual Property Rights and E30 / E72 Dear all, In the CRM, Rights are associated with E72_Legal_Object, which is the parent class of Physical Thing and Symbolic Object. This does not allow for works that are conceptual but not symbolic, such as the plot of a movie or other E89s or E28s to have any legal status. Given that intellectual property does have some legal protection such as patents (a patent document has symbols, but the protection is for the idea described by that document, not the document itself), should it instead be the parent of Physical Thing and Conceptual Object? Many thanks for your thoughts on this, Rob
