Dear all, Thanks for your input. The results of the evote will be discussed at the SIG this week. There were some caveats on the yesses, which I have tried to address in a small rewrite. You can see the slightly updated scope note below:
Scope note taking into account caveats: 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 occurs, 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). 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. Theft is a specific case of illegal transfer of custody 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) I think that the theft idea is totally separate to the question of representative parts so I simply separated them from one another. Otherwise I implemented the introduction of a verb and the fixing of commas (I think). Oyvind, I have not changed the examples though almost all examples are going through a review anyhow. What were your thoughts. The above scope note will be discussed when the issue is broached in our meeting this week. All best, George On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 9:51 PM Pat Riva <[email protected]> wrote: > I vote Yes, but also support the editorial correction from Martijn below > (that a verb is missing in the first line of that paragraph--which is > supplied by Martin, and a comma is too much, and that the explanation of > parts in regards to theft could be clearer). > > Pat > > Pat Riva > > Associate University Librarian, Collection Services > > Concordia University > > > > Vanier Library (VL-301-61) > > 7141 Sherbrooke Street West > > Montreal, QC H4B 1R6 > > Canada > > +1-514-848-2424 ext. 5255 > > [email protected] > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of van Leusen, > P.M. <[email protected]> > *Sent:* October 7, 2020 11:27 AM > *To:* George Bruseker <[email protected]> > *Cc:* crm-sig <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] E-Vote: Change of Scope Note E10 Transfer of > Custody (Issue 475) > > I vote YES, with a caveat about the formulation of the scope note: > In the event that only a single kind of transfer of custody (verb missing), > 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 (this type 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 (this latter part is not clear: > do you mean that at least a part of the object should be in the hands of > the keeper?). The way, (remove comma) 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. > > Martijn > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 7:53 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 > > > > -- > Dr. Martijn van Leusen > Associate Professor, Landscape Archaeology, Groningen Institute of > Archaeology > Poststraat 6, 9712ER Groningen (Netherlands) / phone +31 50 3636717 > Member, Cluster 4 Teaching Board / Chair, Faculty of Arts Advisory Board > for Data Management policies > Academia page <https://rug.academia.edu/MartijnvanLeusen> > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig >
_______________________________________________ Crm-sig mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
