[Crm-sig] SOC: Exchange Activity proposal

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Thu Jun 13 22:48:14 EEST 2019


Dear Robert,

The model you suggest may be quite useful as a specialization of what I 
describe. Systematically, as we model historical reality and not planned 
behaviour, I have concerns about a model that restricts anticipation to 
an ideal. This is a fundamental principle of CRM modelling, and should 
be carefully considered.

The social contract is, to my opinion, only a possible initiator of an 
obligation.

I would question "Exchange" as a so general activity.  I think it is not 
necessary. I think it becomes a reality only in immediate interactions 
without a formal contract. I would not follow legal considerations that 
an implicit contract always comes into being when I buy something on the 
market. Then exchange makes a sense to me.  If a formal contract is in 
place, the type of the contract will determine if it is a plan to 
exchange. Throughout the CRM, we differentiate plans from reality. We 
need to determine, if "exchange" is a plan, or an accomplished fact.

In the model I propose, "provision" is an accomplished fact.

Provisions may be made that do result in obligations that are never 
fulfilled. In the economic crises, all kinds of disruptions in loans 
occur, cancellations included.

Gifts do not cause obligations. Something may be provided, and 
afterwards be declared as a gift.

Exchange can never be guaranteed. What would be the identity condition 
of "exchange"? a terminated obligation, with at least one provision from 
both sides? How do I recognize an exchange?

Taxes are obligations without exchange. I would not go into theoretical 
considerations of a "social contract" always being in place. That would 
overstretch historical reality, e.g., in an occupied medieval country.

Generally, any model creating a triangle of three interdependent classes 
creates a closed world and must be wrong. There should be obligations 
without provisions, provisions without obligations, obligations without 
contracts, contracts without provisions etc.

I would not agree that "provision" can be any activity. "Provision" is a 
clear bilateral action with a beneficiary, and a social good.
If I write a manuscript in order to provide it to a publisher, my 
writing is not a provision, because I may hide it. The fact that many 
activities may be associated with a provision to someone can be modelled 
either with a two-stage process or multiple instantiation.

Thoughts?

Best,

Martin

On 6/13/2019 1:51 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> Currently in SOC, the Social Contract is the point where the 
> activities that fulfill Obligations connect.
>
> Instead, it would be useful if there was an Exchange activity that 
> consisted of the establishment of the Social Contract, and all of the 
> provision Activities.
>
> In the attached diagram, there is the simple case of paying for 
> something. The new class so:Exchange is an Activity that encapsulates 
> the provisioning activities and the agreement to make the exchange.  
> Its duration is the entire duration of the fulfillment of the 
> obligations. It might, therefore, include many such provisions – such 
> as paying monthly installments as separate payments.
>
> It clarifies that the Social Contract is the activity of agreeing upon 
> the terms of the exchange and thus can be temporally bounded 
> separately from the provisions and the exchange itself.
>
> For example, I agree with the bank to pay the cost of my house plus 
> interest over 30 years.  That agreement takes place at the beginning 
> of the exchange. I then take custody of the house and pay monetary 
> amounts every month towards reducing my mortgage. Interest from the 
> bank then increases the amount to be paid back. Eventually, I pay off 
> the house and take full ownership of the property.
>
> This 30 year period is thus a very long running Exchange, consisting 
> of many activities.
>
> This also means that you can have an Exchange where you do not know 
> about the Contract and Obligations, but you do know about the 
> provisioning Activities.
>
> No new properties are needed to get to this degree of modeling, as P9 
> is sufficient for asserting that the different activities are part of 
> the overall Exchange.
>
> This would then pave the way for more specific types of Exchange, such 
> as P2_has_type Mortgage, or Sale, or Sale-by-Auction, etc. It would 
> also potentially allow for gifts and bribes that do not have 
> Obligations or Contracts, per the Obligation scope notes.
>
> Auction of a Lot of 3 paintings would then consist of a payment and 
> three Acquisitions.  The Acquisitions do not individually have 
> payments, as the obligation is that one payment will result in the 
> acquisition of all three paintings.
>
> Rob
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
> http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig


-- 
------------------------------------
  Dr. Martin Doerr
               
  Honorary Head of the
  Center for Cultural Informatics
  
  Information Systems Laboratory
  Institute of Computer Science
  Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
                   
  N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
  GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
  
  Vox:+30(2810)391625
  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
  Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20190613/46531dc0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list