YES
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 1:47 AM George Bruseker <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > In the last CRM SIG (47) we discussed issue 475 > <http://www.cidoc-crm.org/Issue/ID-475-transfer-of-custody> which has to > do with a change to the scope note of E10 Transfer of Custody. R. Sanderson > noted that the scope note seemed to contain a contradiction since the first > line indicated that the transfer of custody was of 'physical possession' > while the second paragraph indicated that it could be of physical > possession OR only of legal custody. > > R. Sanderson proposed to update the scope note in order to consistently > express that the base line case is that BOTH physical and legal custody are > transferred and in the case that it is only one or the other this would be > expressed using the p2 has type property. > > This proposal was generally accepted and the work of creating the precise > wording was left as homework. This HW has been provided by R Sanderson and > is in a good state for voting on. > > Please find below the text of the old and the new scope note. After having > read them, please vote by replying to this email whether to accept this > change. > > You may vote Yes, Yes with a caveat or No, indicating the reason for > rejecting the proposal. > > Please indicate your vote by October 16th. > > Changes marked in *blue* > ----- > > *OLD scope note* > > *E10 Transfer of Custody * > > Subclass of: E7 Activity > > Scope note: This class comprises transfers of physical custody of objects > between instances of E39 Actor. The recording of the donor and/or recipient > is optional. It is possible that in an instance of E10 Transfer of Custody > there is either no donor or no recipient. Depending on the circumstances it > may describe: > > 1. the beginning of custody > > 2. the end of custody > > 3. the transfer of custody > > 4. the receipt of custody from an unknown source > > 5. the declared loss of an object > > The distinction between the legal responsibility for custody and the > actual physical possession of the object should be expressed using the > property P2 has type (is type of). A specific case of transfer of custody > is theft. The sense of physical possession requires that the object of > custody is in the hands of the keeper at least with a part representative > for the whole. The way, in which a representative part is defined, should > ensure that it is unambiguous who keeps a part and who the whole and should > be consistent with the identity criteria of the kept instance of E18 > Physical Thing. For instance, in the case of a set of cutlery we may > require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of the actor > regardless which individual pieces are kept over time. > > The interpretation of the museum notion of "accession" differs between > institutions. The CIDOC CRM therefore models legal ownership and physical > custody separately. Institutions will then model their specific notions of > accession and deaccession as combinations of these. > > Examples: > > - the delivery of the paintings by Secure Deliveries Inc. to the > National Gallery the return of Picasso’s “Guernica” to Madrid’s Prado in > 1981 (Chipp, 1988) > > In First Order Logic: > > E10(x) ⊃ E7(x) > > Properties: > > P28 custody surrendered by (surrendered custody through): E39 Actor > > P29 custody received by (received custody through): E39 Actor > > P30 transferred custody of (custody transferred through): E18 Physical > Thing > > *NEW scope note* > > *E10 Transfer of Custody * > > Subclass of: E7 Activity > > Scope note: This class comprises transfers of the physical custody, or > the legal responsibility for the physical custody, of objects. The > recording of the donor or recipient is optional. It is possible that in > an instance of E10 Transfer of Custody there is either no donor or no > recipient. Depending on the circumstances it may describe: > > 1. the beginning of custody (there is no previous custodian) > > 2. the end of custody (there is no subsequent custodian) > > 3. the transfer of custody (transfer from one custodian to the next) > > 4. the receipt of custody from an unknown source (the previous custodian > is unknown) > > 5. the declared loss of an object (the current or subsequent custodian is > unknown) > > In the event that only a single kind of transfer of custody, either the > legal responsibility for the custody or the actual physical possession of > the object but not both, this difference should be expressed using the > property P2 has type (is type of). A specific case of transfer of > custody is theft. The sense of physical possession requires that the object > of custody is in the hands of the keeper at least with a part > representative for the whole. The way, in which a representative part is > defined, should ensure that it is unambiguous who keeps a part and who the > whole and should be consistent with the identity criteria of the kept > instance of E18 Physical Thing. For instance, in the case of a set of > cutlery we may require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of > the actor regardless which individual pieces are kept over time. > > The interpretation of the museum notion of "accession" differs between > institutions. The CIDOC CRM therefore models legal ownership and physical > custody separately. Institutions will then model their specific notions of > accession and deaccession as combinations of these. > > Examples: > > - the delivery of the paintings by Secure Deliveries Inc. to the > National Gallery the return of Picasso’s “Guernica” to Madrid’s Prado in > 1981 (Chipp, 1988) > > In First Order Logic: > > E10(x) ⇒ E7(x) > > Properties: > > P28 custody surrendered by (surrendered custody through): E39 Actor > > P29 custody received by (received custody through): E39 Actor > > P30 transferred custody of (custody transferred through): E18 Physical > Thing > > > > Sincerely, > > George Bruseker > Vice-Chair CIDOC CRM SIG > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > -- Rob Sanderson Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata Yale University
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
