[Crm-sig] Intellectual Property Rights and E30 / E72

Stephen Stead steads at paveprime.com
Fri Mar 23 01:11:57 EET 2018

Hi Robert

I think you may have misunderstood the hierarchy at this point. Being the parent class of E18 Physical Thing and E90 Symbolic Object does not preclude other things from being instances of E72 Legal Object, it merely states that all instances of E18 Physical Thing and all instances of E90 Symbolic Object are also, by inheritance, E72 Legal Objects.

So there is nothing to stop an instance of, for example, E28 Conceptual Object being multiply instantiated as also being an instance of E72 Legal Object but, as is made clear in the scope note, not all instances of E28 Conceptual Object are necessarily also instances of E72 Legal Object.




Stephen Stead

Tel +44 20 8668 3075 

Mob +44 7802 755 013

E-mail  <mailto:steads at paveprime.com> steads at paveprime.com

LinkedIn Profile  <https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/> https://www.linkedin.com/in/steads/


From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
Sent: 22 March 2018 20:18
To: crm-sig <Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
Subject: [Crm-sig] Intellectual Property Rights and E30 / E72



Dear all,


In the CRM, Rights are associated with E72_Legal_Object, which is the parent class of Physical Thing and Symbolic Object.

This does not allow for works that are conceptual but not symbolic, such as the plot of a movie or other E89s or E28s to have any legal status.


Given that intellectual property does have some legal protection such as patents (a patent document has symbols, but the protection is for the idea described by that document, not the document itself), should it instead be the parent of Physical Thing and Conceptual Object?


Many thanks for your thoughts on this,




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20180322/dfab68fc/attachment.html>

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list