Dear Robert,
On 3/16/2020 8:10 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Thanks Martin!
I would be happy with the temporary being explicit for the keeper, but
then we have an inconsistency between location and custodian. Would
the same apply for location as well?
Probably, but I am not so much concerned about this case in the first
place. The analogy is is not so straightforward, and the "current
permanent location" may need a better definition. The intentionality
behind the "current permanent location" may be modeled in a more robust
way, may be more explicitly associated with the keeper.
So, let us first understand the keeper. The temporary keeper does not
remove responsibilities from the permanent one, she only reduces the
immediacy of physical control by the permanent one. The permanent keeper
will continue to control that the object will come back. The current
permanent location on the other side does not have any agency of its
own, and hence nothing to make it permanent.
This would mean that we can be clear that there is an exceptional,
temporary circumstance that should be expected to revert back to the
normal circumstances in the future. I have a temporary work location
of my home, but when this pesky virus has gone, it will go back to
being my office at the Getty Center.
Yes, needs analysis of what agency determines which. Normally, the
employer foresees the office for the employee. If you are your own boss,
you would declare the residence of your business to the authorities.
In terms of the types of transfers … yes, but there might be many
types of transfers which are either permanent or temporary. It would
be nightmarish to try and track which were which without some
consistent method to flag them. Indeed Guernica’s travels around the
world are a great example of the complexity here!
Sure, but this can be done! You can try formulating a vocab for these
types of transfer, you have all the experts at hand:-)
.
Could we get a complete record of Guernica's travel as example? If we
have more than one temporary keeper nested, then any attempt to model
this by a new property appears to be invalidated. We could only trace
the types of transfer. Imagine, an object on loan goes to the
conservation department of the receiving institute, and there it is stolen.
There are many such parts in the CRM that wait for elaboration of
suitable vocabs.
Best,
martin
Rob
*From: *Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin
Doerr <[email protected]>
*Date: *Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 7:48 AM
*To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Normal Custodian Of?
Dear Robert, All,
I see the point, but propose another solution. I have even proposed to
deprecate "current permanent location", because the "permanent" is
hard to be objectified, and here extremely specific to a certain
inventory practice.
I'd rather argue, that the current keeper of an object that is handed
out for loan stays obliged for safe-guarding the object. So, a
property "has temporary keeper" would be much more informative, and
positively states what is happening. We should just accept a "current
keeper" being simultaneaously in charge with a "temporary keeper", and
the event of change of custody to the respective temporary keeper will
specify anyhow the character of the transfer.
If transfers of custody are completely registered, as the examples
suggest, there is no need for further differentiations of stateful
properties, because the type of transfer can register that.
In any case, think of "Guernica" ! Reality can be very complex;-)
Best,
Martin
On 3/6/2020 12:10 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
Another use case which has come up:
A painting is given from the Paintings department, which is the
normal custodian, to the Conservation department, in order to
perform conservation work on it.
The Conservation department has custody of it, but the Paintings
department is still the normal custodian. The ownership of the
object doesn’t change. And potentially the physical location of it
doesn’t either, if the conservation work is being done in place in
the gallery, such as the current work on the Nightwatch at the
Rijksmuseum, or Blue Boy at the Huntingdon here in California.
Rob
*From: *George Bruseker <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Date: *Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:14 AM
*To: *Robert Sanderson <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc: *crm-sig <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Normal Custodian Of?
It seems to make sense to raise as an issue. The case does seem to
come up reasonably frequently. The parallel seems convincing. For
the moment we could cover temporal elements by initiating the
existing of the property via an E13 attribute assignment (if we
had such info).
On Feb 15, 2020, at 2:33 AM, Robert Sanderson
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Apologies, I should have put NEW ISSUE in the subject for this
originally.
As a quick proposal to discuss:
With P54 has current permanent location as a precedent, I
would propose a Pxx has current permanent custodian as a new
property to manage the knowledge described in the email below.
Happy to work on a scope note for it if that’s a useful thing
to add to the ontology.
Rob
*From:*Robert Sanderson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Date:*Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 12:24 PM
*To:*"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*Normal Custodian Of?
Dear fellow SIG folks,
Happy new year😊
A question came up here as to how to record the normal
custodian of an object, as opposed to the current custodian.
For example, if we have custody of an object but it’s a
permanent loan from a donor, and we lend it to another
organization for an exhibition, then the owner doesn’t change
(still the donor, probably wanting to remain anonymous) and
there’s a transfer of custody from ourselves to the exhibiting
organization. If that’s a travelling exhibit, it might pass
through several custodians before it should eventually return
to us.
Is there a way to track this not-quite-an-owner but
not-just-the-current-custodian state? The only way that I can
see is to model the right of permanent custody separate from
the right of temporary custody… but then we re-enter the
rights and temporal validity arena. Perhaps this would be
another motivating use case for moving forward with that work?
Many thanks for your thoughts,
Rob
--
*Rob Sanderson*,**Semantic Architect | Getty Digital |
getty.edu <http://getty.edu/>
<image001.jpg>
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
*CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and
know the content is safe.*
_______________________________________________
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
*CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know
the content is safe.*
--
------------------------------------
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]
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
