[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