[Crm-sig] SOC: Proposal to remove Provision and replace with Activity

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Jun 18 19:34:45 EEST 2019


Dear Robert, all,

Let me make some clarifications. I propose a class provision with the 
scope note I have provided.

I propose to model *bottom-up*, and the general scope I consider is what 
we call business between well-defined parties.

Your list of activities well-taken:-), I would rather like to understand 
what the social goods are, that can be provided in the framework of 
business interaction, and specialize them, rather than saying it can be 
anything. It obviously cannot, and obviously not all you list do provide 
a social *to* someone, out of their nature.

If we understand social goods, we can understand provisions and 
obligations, and from that we can understand contracts about social 
goods. Ontology modelling is making distinctions;-), even "provision" 
may be too general already.

On 6/15/2019 3:28 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> To break up the long email into different issues…
>
> I don’t think that a bilateral action is a sufficient scope for the 
> sorts of activities that can affect social contracts, even in the 
> cultural heritage domain let alone beyond.
>
I would like to see a clear definition of social contracts in the first 
place, but I did not propose a class that covers all sorts of activities 
that can affect a social contract. Much too general that I would have 
any opinion on it so far.


> Examples of activities that fall within the domain that are done in 
> order to fulfil an obligation:
>
I'd argue that the primary thing is not to fulfill an obligation, but to 
change an obligation.
>
> ·Payment.  Self-evident.
>
yes, but not always. Can be gift.
>
> ·Acquisition. Self-evident.
>
yes, but not always. I have counter examples
>
> ·Production.  We know how much some artists were paid in order to 
> produce their artworks. Please see: 
> http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/provenance/payments_to_artists/index.html
>
Production is not delivery. The artist is payed to deliver, not to 
produce. If she doesn't deliver, she is not paid.
>
> ·Move.  We pay couriers to move our paintings to the venue of an 
> exhibition.
>
Same.
>
> ·Modification. We pay and are paid to conserve objects.
>
Here delivery is implicit indeed.
>
> ·Creation. We pay people to generate content of all different types.
>
Is not delivery....
>
> ·Performance. Professional actors/actresses, singers, dancers, etc. 
> are paid for their performances.
>
Some times....
>
> ·Joining. We pay to join (and later remain) part of groups. We pay to 
> be part of the W3C and IIIF Consortium, for example. Students pay to 
> be part of an artist’s school.
>
Yes, falls under obtaining rights.
>
> This leaves very few Activity subclasses in CRMbase that are /not/ 
> easy to come up with use cases for why they should be able to decrease 
> (or increase) the state of an obligation.
>
We should be careful. It is not an art to go for high-level classes to 
avoid understanding the nature of things.
I propose first to discuss seriously the concept of providing a social 
good. To avoid multiple Instantiation, as we have agreed, is not a 
principle of ontological modelling, and must not be an argument.
>
> Two-stage processes and multiple instantiation are just complex work 
> arounds for an overly prescriptive model. Just because not every 
> instance of an activity is a provision doesn’t mean that it cannot be 
> the object of an Obligation is_reduced_by property. Not every 
> Acquisition transfers the title from some actor, but that doesn’t mean 
> we need to split up the class hierarchy to ensure acquiring objects de 
> novo cannot have the property.
>
Right. I still first want to understand the nature of providing 
something, with an explicit receiver. First we need to understand how to 
describe the different directions in an obligation-driven business. It 
does not work with properties only. Needs a logic added.The performer is 
paid by the organizer to provide a performance to a public on behalf the 
organizer. The organizer takes money from the audience. This is a 
third-party scenario. I'd like to understand that first, and postpone 
the discussion about the necessity of "Provision":-).


All the best,

Martin
>
> Rob
>
> *From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin 
> Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr>
> *Date: *Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 9:48 PM
> *To: *"crm-sig at ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] SOC: Exchange Activity proposal
>
> 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.
>
>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190618/4a93216a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list