Dear Robert,
This is a very interesting question. Methodologically, we built
bottom-up from what we have understood. The idea so far was, that
symbolic objects are tangible in a sense that they can be subject to an
objective description of what a right is about. Indeed, patents show
that the right to be formulated needs a symbolic object as target.
It is equally correct, that the patent is about a conceptual object. We
had discussed in the past that there is a vast variety of conceptual
objects, such as many types of things and ideas, which do not have
sufficient precision to be subject to rights.
We have so far not found a good characterization of non-symbolic kinds
of conceptual objects, which would be independent from just having the
potential to be subject to right. Nowadays, people do even claim patents
on species, but declaring a new class of conceptual objects defined as
being those that are also E72 would be a tautology with E72 intersected
with E28, hence nothing new. I doubt that even any lawyer could give us
better rules.
Putting a property too high up causes in the future non-monotonic
changes, when systematic cases are found, that must be modeled
differently. So, it is a question of balancing "unintended models"
against being too close. This has been exactly described by Nicola
Guarino in "Formal Ontology and Information Systems". In N. Guarino
(ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Proc. of the 1st
International Conference, Trento, Italy, 6-8 June 1998. IOS Press.
Now, logically, it is not correct to say: "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.".
We apply an Open World model, and, in general, do not describe negative
knowledge, such as disjointness. E90 being subclass of E72, does not
mean that other things CANNOT be E72. There is no disjointness statement
implied. You simply use multiple instantiation for those things, that
are E72, but not instance of any explicit subclass of it. The CRM and
RDF/OWL allows for that. Your S/W should allow for that. Often, S/W does
not foresee multiple instantiation, which is a logical problem of the S/W.
If we interpret the fact that Information Object is both propositional
and Symbolic, the right can apply to both the symbolic form or the idea
expressed, as long as we create no other instance representing the idea
itself in an identifiable way. This could be characterized by the
description of the right..
So far my thoughts,
All the best,
Martin
On 3/22/2018 10:17 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr | Vox:+30(2810)391625 |
Research Director | Fax:+30(2810)391638 |
| Email: [email protected] |
|
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
