[Crm-sig] Financial transactions (was CRM Right and Time-Span: ISSUE)

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Fri Mar 26 23:59:28 EET 2010


Dear Nick,

This is a very nice model. I would however not regard the current Acquisition as inconsistent, because
it is restricted to physical things. Rather, I'd regard it as a special case of a more general transaction concept.
We need it as specific to infer the ownership of a physical thing.
If we understand what acquiring an non-material item means, I see no problem to generalize Acquisition.
Otherwise, we could just specialize the "used object" to the transferred exchange object.
Would acquiring a copyright fall under your model?

Are in your model giver and receiver reciprocal? What about more complex exchange business?

kind regards,

Martin

Nicholas Crofts wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I recently used the CRM as the basis for a data migration for a client 
> changing their software platform. Since all the data had to be moved, 
> including all the records of commercial transactions that are currently 
> out of scope for the CRM, we made the ad hoc extensions described below. 
> I should point out that the scope of these extensions was limited to the 
> cases we had to deal with. It isn't intended as a complete model for all 
> financial transactions. However, it might serve to set the ball 
> rolling...  
> 
> 
> Monetary /quantity/ features in the CRM as an example of E56 Dimension 
> and /currency units/ are given as examples of E58 Measurement Unit. 
> However, the CRM gives no explicit indications concerning the way 
> financial transactions such as purchases should be represented. The 
> properties of /E8 Acquisition/, for example, allow the object being 
> acquired, the previous owner, and the new owner to be specified, but 
> not, in the case of a purchase, the amount paid.
> 
> 
> In order to represent financial transactions adequately, we defined 
> Purchase and other operations involving payments as subtypes of E8 
> Acquisition (specified using the /P2 has type/ property). We also 
> defined a new specialization of the CRM property P24 transferred title 
> of: /P24 transferred payment/. The domain of this subproperty remains E8 
> Acquisition, but the range is defined as /E72 Legal Object/. This class 
> seems to be ideally suited for instantiating sums of money exchanged in 
> financial transactions. As a subclass of /E70 Thing/ it inherits the 
> property /P43 has dimension/, allowing monetary quantity and units to be 
> specified. The properties defined for Legal Object concern the 
> definition of rights, notably the right of ownership, which clearly 
> apply to sums of money. E72 Legal Object makes no assumptions about the 
> /physical/ manifestation of the legal object being referred to, which 
> seems entirely appropriate for monetary payments since these may be made 
> using a variety of monetary instruments, both physical and virtual, 
> whose precise nature is largely irrelevant to the act of payment.
> 
> Thus we define purchase as the /P24 transfer of title of/ a E18 Physical 
> Thing, (transferred from Actor A to Actor B) in exchange for a /E72 
> Legal Object, /(transferred from Actor B to Actor A). Since the two 
> parties involved in the transaction are already defined by the 
> properties P22 and P23, and since the reciprocal direction of the 
> exchange of payment is inherent in the idea of purchase, we thought it 
> unnecessary to define supplementary properties to make explicit the 
> actors making and receiving the payment. This would be required for 
> complex transactions, for example where payment is made on behalf of the 
> institution by a third party.
> 
> Incidentally, this extended model highlights a possible incoherence in 
> the CRM, already discussed by Christian-Emil and Georg. The range of 
> /P24 transferred title of/ is defined as E18 Physical Thing, but the 
> definition of E72 Legal Object clearly indicates that ownership and 
> title are not limited to physical items but can also apply to 
> intellectual property. It would therefore seem logical to modify the 
> range of P24 to apply to E72. In its current state, the CRM does not 
> allow the acquisition of intellectual property to be documented.  
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Nick
>  
> nicholas crofts consulting
> cultural information management
> gestion de l'information culturelle
>  
> av. miremont 23c
> ch-1206 genève
> +41 22 557 90 92
> nicholas at crofts.ch
> www.crofts.ch <http://www.crofts.ch>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Christian-Emil Ore <c.e.s.ore at iln.uio.no>
> *To:* martin <martin at ics.forth.gr>
> *Cc:* crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> *Sent:* Sun, 28 February, 2010 21:46:02
> *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] CRM Right and Time-Span: ISSUE
> 
> Dear Martin,
> I will really like to give it a try
> C-E
> 
> On 28.02.2010 21:19, martin wrote:
>  > Dear Christian-Emil, Georg,
>  >
>  > Indeed I would appreciate an initiative to model business 
> transactions and
>  > a model of everything that can be acquired in a wider sense, as an
>  > (external)
>  > extension of the CRM.
>  >
>  > Would someone like to invest more time into that? If we come up with a
>  > satisfactory
>  > model, we can still decide in the future, if it should be part of the
>  > CRM. I am currently
>  > hesitating to add anything of this kind to the CRM, before having
>  > understood the whole
>  > complex completely. I'd start with a model of a simple exchange
>  > transaction of material
>  > objects, and then go into details of what money is, what a payment is,
>  > what an acquired right is.
>  >
>  > What do you think?
>  >
>  > Best,
>  >
>  > Martin
>  >
>  >
>  > Christian-Emil Ore wrote:
>  >> That's right, Martin.
>  >> I am not very overly enthusiastic of using to many states, cf. ABC 
> model.
>  >>
>  >> It is correct that commercial activities and business is not in the
>  >> scope of the CRM.
>  >>
>  >> Some rights can be transferred completely others are created as a part
>  >> of the transaction. If I buy a piece of music (an inaccurate term)
>  >> from Itune, my right to play this music (that is the content of the
>  >> file) on my device did not exist earlier and is created in the
>  >> transfer of title process.
>  >>
>  >> Chr-E
>  >>
>  >> On 18.02.2010 21:15, martin wrote:
>  >>> Dear Christian-Emil, Georg,
>  >>>
>  >>> I believe we have two issues here. The temporality of Right has two
>  >>> explanations:
>  >>>
>  >>> a) Right is a Conceptual Object, which is created at some time.
>  >>>    It has a validity, which is a temporal entity, with distinct dates
>  >>>
>  >>> b) The "right" someone holds is in itself a state, i.e. a subclass of
>  >>> Temporal Entity.
>  >>> Both models can be used to report the history of rights.
>  >>>
>  >>> The issue of bying rights is another one.
>  >>>
>  >>> If someone acquires a copyright, this does not necessarily imply that
>  >>> someone else
>  >>> looses it, i.e., that there is only one holder of a Right of type
>  >>> "copyright". If this
>  >>> is the case, my copyright and your copyright on the same text is two
>  >>> different instances.
>  >>> In this sense, it is not "sold", but I can be paid for resigning from
>  >>> my right and granting
>  >>> you a right.
>  >>>
>  >>> The question is, if the CRM should deal in such detail with rights
>  >>> and business, or if this would
>  >>> be a compatible extension. In particular, we have no model for
>  >>> exchange businesses of any kind,
>  >>> this was not in the practical scope. But, of course, this is very
>  >>> interesting!
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> To be discussed.
>  >>>
>  >>> Martin
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> Christian-Emil Ore wrote:
>  >>>> Dear Georg,
>  >>>> I got your eamil when I came back from Helsinki and  had caught a
>  >>>> cold. That is the reason I did not read it that carefully. This is
>  >>>> really fun.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> In CRM applications there has according my impressions been an
>  >>>> increasing tendency to explain the lack of what you mention with the
>  >>>> use of a (E2-E5) temporal entity to express what you mentioned.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> I remember the discussion which in fact was on two different issues
>  >>>> we had in the meetings and in the email list:
>  >>>> 1) Is ownership a right?
>  >>>> 2) can a right be sold or acquired?
>  >>>>
>  >>>> 1) I argued that ownership to something clearly is a right. This was
>  >>>> accepted and we got
>  >>>> 
> *************************************************************************
>  >>>>
>  >>>> P105 right held by (has right on)
>  >>>> Domain:        E72 Legal Object
>  >>>> Range:        E39 Actor
>  >>>> Superproperty of: P52 has current owner (is current owner of)
>  >>>> Quantification:        many to many (0,n:0,n)
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Scope note:    This property identifies the E39 Actor who holds the
>  >>>> instances of E30 Right to an E72 Legal Object.
>  >>>>    It is a superproperty of P52 has current owner (is current owner
>  >>>> of) because ownership is a right that is held on the owned object.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> P105 right held by (has right on) is a shortcut of the fully
>  >>>> developed path from E72 Legal Object through P104 is subject to
>  >>>> (applies to), E30 Right, P75 possesses (is possessed by) to E39 Actor.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Examples:      Beatles back catalogue (E73) right held by Michael
>  >>>> Jackson (E21)
>  >>>> 
> ***************************************************************************
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> 2) Here my view has not been so successful:  I argued that some
>  >>>> rights (culture dependent) can be sold and acquired, for example
>  >>>> copyrights. However ideal intellectual rights cannot be transfered
>  >>>> according to at least the European continental legislation. So there
>  >>>> are clearly some rights that cannot be sold in an ideal world. Since
>  >>>> these rights are given by the allmighty or a priori (again according
>  >>>> to the given cultural  context) it is a question if these should be
>  >>>> considered as rights in the CRM. The original motivation of the
>  >>>> introduction of the class right is the rights complex problem in
>  >>>> museums, that is ownership, copyright and other rights to do thing
>  >>>> with objects. The current class has a wider scope.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> My suggestion is that the range of "P24 transferred title of
>  >>>> (changed ownership through): E18 Physical Thing" should be
>  >>>> lifted/generalised to E72 legal object.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> It is possible to express your example by the use of E5 event of
>  >>>> type ownership although I don't like that solution.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> I post this email to the crm sig as well to see if we can get some
>  >>>> discussion.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Christian-Emil
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> On 29.01.2010 14:53, Hohmann, Georg wrote:
>  >>>>> Dear Christian-Emil,
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> we are currently mapping data of our domains to the respective
>  >>>>> CIDOC CRM concepts and properties for the WissKI-project. During
>  >>>>> this effort we encountered a problem with the mapping of multiple
>  >>>>> rights on objects and metadata-documents. We currently can't find a
>  >>>>> way to express the history of former rights applied to such objects.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> As an example:
>  >>>>> The publishing rights on the "Allgemeine Künstlerlexikon" (AKL) ...
>  >>>>> ... was held by the publisher "E. A. Seemann" from 1969 to 1990.
>  >>>>> ... was held by the publisher "K. G. Saur" from 1991 to 2005.
>  >>>>> ... was held by the publisher "Walter de Gruyter" from 2006 up to 
> now.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> In our understanding this relationship between an actor and right
>  >>>>> can not be expressed using 'P51 has former or current owner' or
>  >>>>> 'P52 has current owner'. However, there seems to be no other
>  >>>>> solution to connect specific 'E30 Right' to a 'E52 Time-span'. With
>  >>>>> the help of almighty Google we found your mail about a similar
>  >>>>> issue on the SIG-Mailinglist:
>  >>>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/2007-February/000991.html
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> This also seems to be a valid solution for our problem. Did you get
>  >>>>> any feedback according to this problem? How did you finally solve it?
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> Best Regards,
>  >>>>> Georg
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> I read through a CRM mapping of the basic Norwegian photo 
> documentation
>  >>>> standard where ownership and intellectual rights where mapped by P51
>  >>>> and
>  >>>> P105 respectively:
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Ownership, event oriented
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Full path:
>  >>>> E18 Physical Thing <- P24 Transferred Title of <- E8 Acquisition Event
>  >>>> -> P22 Transferred title to -> E39Actor
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Shortcut:
>  >>>> E18 Physical Thing  -> P51 has former or current owner ->  E39 Actor
>  >>>>
>  >>>> *
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Intellectual rights, no event
>  >>>>    *
>  >>>> Full path in CRM:
>  >>>> E72 Legal Object ->P104 Is subject to -> E30Right <- P75Posesses <-
>  >>>> E39Actor
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Shortcut:
>  >>>> E72 Legal Object->P105Right held by-> E39Actor
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> According to the CRM one can only own physical stuff (thing forgive
>  >>>> me).
>  >>>> One can only hold rights to abstracts/conceptual objects. This is ok.
>  >>>> One may also hold rights to physical stuff. Is it possible to imagine
>  >>>> ownership without a some kind of legal system?  The scope note for E30
>  >>>> Right: "This class comprises legal privileges concerning material and
>  >>>> immaterial things or their derivatives". A fair interpretation of
>  >>>> "legal
>  >>>> privileges" includes all types of ownership. So it not unnatural 
> to use
>  >>>> P105 instead of P51. So should E8 Acquisition be replacedby /be a
>  >>>> subclass  an "Acquisition of right"  event or the properties adjusted?
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> _______________________________________________
>  >>>> Crm-sig mailing list
>  >>>> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>  >>>> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig


-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------
  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
  Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
                                                              |
                Center for Cultural Informatics               |
                Information Systems Laboratory                |
                 Institute of Computer Science                |
    Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
                                                              |
  Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
                                                              |
          Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl               |
--------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the Crm-sig mailing list