Dear Robert,
On 3/23/2018 1:24 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
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”
Interstellar dust and bodies of water are not Physical Things. Please
read the definition of Physical Thing in the CRM and Material
Substantial in CRMSci. If this leaves any ambiguity, please let us know:-)
Martin
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
_______________________________________________
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 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
