I have some questions about ongoing beliefs in Inf and especially Activity Plans in Soc with regard to the restriction to modeling historical reality, as opposed to planned behavior. It seems that at least Activity Plan and Trigger Event Template are exactly about planned behavior.
However I don’t think that the proposal actually falls afoul of this scoping. It is [historical] reality that there was an exchange (a past acquisition), or that an exchange is currently ongoing (my mortgage). The way that I would model a sale of three paintings: · An exchange begins with an agreement (the contract that establishes the obligations) to exchange the three paintings for a monetary amount. · Each of the paintings, either in turn or simultaneously, are acquired, transferring the custody of each to the buyer · The custody of the paintings are, again in turn or simultaneously, transferred to the buyer · The buyer, in one or more payments, renders the complete monetary amount · The fulfillment of these conditions triggers the end of the exchange. To the question of what is the substance of the exchange, it is the activity that begins with the agreement that each party or their delegates should perform some (likely implicitly) agreed upon set of activities, including Acquisitions, Payments, Moves, Transfers of Custody, Modifications, etc. It ends when all of the agreed upon activities have been performed, or it is cancelled by some external activity by reducing the set of agreed upon actions to only ones that have been completed. I think the issue is the way that we think about contracts and obligations. With George and Stephen, I think we agree that they are some sort of Propositional Objects, not Temporal Entities. There is a proposition set that asserts the requirement for the payment(s), custody and title transfers. The requirements are the obligations, and the proposition set of the obligations is the contract. The actual social obligation is something similar to a belief, but one held by a society, rather than an individual. For example: The SIG “believes” in the Obligation that Martin owes the SIG some homework that was assigned to him in the 44th SIG meeting in Paris. Martin does not have any knowledge of that homework as he was not present, but the social norm allows for homework (obligations) to be assigned to people without their explicit consent or knowledge. [And the homework to write something would, IMO, be a Creation, to my previous point] We might want to track when Martin becomes aware of the Obligation to do the homework, which would be the belief creation. When the email is written, the trigger event template is matched, executing the (likely implicit) activity plan to remove the obligation and thereby end the exchange activity. Exchange is not necessarily a good label, it was just one that I took from Francesco’s ontology. George, Stephen please correct my slightly hazy ;) memory of the discussion! Rob From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Doerr <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 9:48 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] SOC: Exchange Activity proposal Systematically, as we model historical reality and not planned behaviour, I have concerns about a model that restricts anticipation to an ideal. I would question "Exchange" as a so general activity. I think it is not necessary. I think it becomes a reality only in immediate interactions without a formal contract. I would not follow legal considerations that an implicit contract always comes into being when I buy something on the market. Then exchange makes a sense to me. If a formal contract is in place, the type of the contract will determine if it is a plan to exchange. Throughout the CRM, we differentiate plans from reality. We need to determine, if "exchange" is a plan, or an accomplished fact. In the model I propose, "provision" is an accomplished fact. Provisions may be made that do result in obligations that are never fulfilled. In the economic crises, all kinds of disruptions in loans occur, cancellations included. Exchange can never be guaranteed. What would be the identity condition of "exchange"? a terminated obligation, with at least one provision from both sides? How do I recognize an exchange? Taxes are obligations without exchange. I would not go into theoretical considerations of a "social contract" always being in place. That would overstretch historical reality, e.g., in an occupied medieval country. Generally, any model creating a triangle of three interdependent classes creates a closed world and must be wrong. There should be obligations without provisions, provisions without obligations, obligations without contracts, contracts without provisions etc. I would not agree that "provision" can be any activity. "Provision" is a clear bilateral action with a beneficiary, and a social good. If I write a manuscript in order to provide it to a publisher, my writing is not a provision, because I may hide it. The fact that many activities may be associated with a provision to someone can be modelled either with a two-stage process or multiple instantiation. Thoughts? Best, Martin On 6/13/2019 1:51 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote: Currently in SOC, the Social Contract is the point where the activities that fulfill Obligations connect. Instead, it would be useful if there was an Exchange activity that consisted of the establishment of the Social Contract, and all of the provision Activities. In the attached diagram, there is the simple case of paying for something. The new class so:Exchange is an Activity that encapsulates the provisioning activities and the agreement to make the exchange. Its duration is the entire duration of the fulfillment of the obligations. It might, therefore, include many such provisions – such as paying monthly installments as separate payments. It clarifies that the Social Contract is the activity of agreeing upon the terms of the exchange and thus can be temporally bounded separately from the provisions and the exchange itself. For example, I agree with the bank to pay the cost of my house plus interest over 30 years. That agreement takes place at the beginning of the exchange. I then take custody of the house and pay monetary amounts every month towards reducing my mortgage. Interest from the bank then increases the amount to be paid back. Eventually, I pay off the house and take full ownership of the property. This 30 year period is thus a very long running Exchange, consisting of many activities. This also means that you can have an Exchange where you do not know about the Contract and Obligations, but you do know about the provisioning Activities. No new properties are needed to get to this degree of modeling, as P9 is sufficient for asserting that the different activities are part of the overall Exchange. This would then pave the way for more specific types of Exchange, such as P2_has_type Mortgage, or Sale, or Sale-by-Auction, etc. It would also potentially allow for gifts and bribes that do not have Obligations or Contracts, per the Obligation scope notes. Auction of a Lot of 3 paintings would then consist of a payment and three Acquisitions. The Acquisitions do not individually have payments, as the obligation is that one payment will result in the acquisition of all three paintings. Rob _______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig -- ------------------------------------ Dr. Martin Doerr Honorary Head of the 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 Vox:+30(2810)391625 Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
