[Crm-sig] SOC: Exchange Activity proposal
martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Jun 18 22:27:12 EEST 2019
On 6/15/2019 3:57 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> I have some questions about ongoing beliefs in Inf and especially
> Activity Plans in Soc with regard to the restriction to modeling
> historical reality, as opposed to planned behavior. It seems that at
> least Activity Plan and Trigger Event Template are exactly about
> planned behavior.
Yes, of course. In CRMbase, we decided to model historical reality and
plans as historical reality of being planned as a document. We decided
not to go into details of analyzing how to manage things so that they
will yield an expected result in the future. This is the focus of
engineering. There are many, many ontologies and model dealing with this
matter. Even in engineering, the focus of quality control is to
understand what in reality has deviated from the expected. Now, in
CRMSoc, we see a much stronger focus on the tension between expectations
and what happens.
My comment was not questioning modelling plans. My comment was that
mixing accomplished reality with planned reality is ontologically wrong.
It is ultimately disjoint. A real event or thing has practically
unlimited features. Anything we can do about future is aiming at some
constraints, which leaves open infinite realities fulfilling any plan.
Monitoring of ongoing events in an open world is a logical nightmare,
because time overruns continuously plans. I suggest not to enter this.
> However I don’t think that the proposal actually falls afoul of this
> scoping. It is [historical] reality that there was an exchange (a past
> acquisition), or that an exchange is currently ongoing (my mortgage).
> The way that I would model a sale of three paintings:
> ·An exchange begins with an agreement (the contract that establishes
> the obligations) to exchange the three paintings for a monetary amount.
> ·Each of the paintings, either in turn or simultaneously, are
> acquired, transferring the custody of each to the buyer
> ·The custody of the paintings are, again in turn or simultaneously,
> transferred to the buyer
> ·The buyer, in one or more payments, renders the complete monetary amount
> ·The fulfillment of these conditions triggers the end of the exchange.
I completely agree with this description. I question if the "exchange"
is a good class, not that the concept exists.
> To the question of what is the substance of the exchange, it is the
> activity that begins with the agreement that each party or their
> delegates should perform some (likely implicitly) agreed upon set of
> activities, including Acquisitions, Payments, Moves, Transfers of
> Custody, Modifications, etc. It ends when all of the agreed upon
> activities have been performed, or it is cancelled by some external
> activity by reducing the set of agreed upon actions to only ones that
> have been completed.
So, the reasoning we apply to such things is they must be
exception-free. If the activity starts with an exchange plan, then it
has not yet exchanged anything. If it ends without exchanging, the
reality is substantially different from if it ends with exchanging. So,
if I query your class: What exchanges have happened? Your class answers
only planned exchanges, because the only necessary condition you provide
above is the plan, regardless if there was a real exchange.
If, on the other side, you require the exchange to have happened, then
its substance is an accomplished fact. This is what I suggested as
semantics for "exchange".
If, in your model, the necessary substance of the exchange is only a
plan, then, in order to query, if an exchange has actually happened, we
need to check fulfillment of obligations. Then, this was my suggestion,
the final provision terminating the obligation is the historical fact
that identifies the actual exchange. In that case, the primitive classes
are the provisions and obligations, and the exchange is a logical
derivative. Our methodology strictly requires to model primitives first.
> I think the issue is the way that we think about contracts and
> obligations. With George and Stephen, I think we agree that they are
> some sort of Propositional Objects, not Temporal Entities.
I think this is a fundamental methodological error. You equate a term
with one ontological class. I think it is most obviously both, a
Prop.Object and an E2. The question is not that you think differently
than I do. We live in the same world. We cannot have different worlds
about such fundamentals in our head. If the obligation were a
proposition only, I would never have any obligations, because
propositions have no effect on reality. This negligence of fundamental
multiple aspects of our terms in favour of one is the source for most
modelling errors. Obviously, there is a society that maintains for these
concepts a specific behavior, which has temporal limits. It is one of
these "social institutions". Once obligation has a validity, a begin and
end in time,
> There is a proposition set that asserts the requirement for the
> payment(s), custody and title transfers. The requirements are the
> obligations, and the proposition set of the obligations is the
> contract. The actual social obligation is something similar to a
> belief, but one held by a society, rather than an individual.
Sure, it is a Temporal Entity, exactly, one maintained by society. This
is all the reasoning I gave for the Social Bonds. If the contract is the
proposition set (I agree), well, then, there is a contractual
obligation, which is determined by the proposition, ie., "the obligation
is to do XXX".
I would not question that. Then, we have two entities, the contract, and
the society that respects it, which makes it an obligation. And there
are legal conditions, under which in one country the contract it valid
but not in all terms. Hence, there is a difference again between
contract and obligation. My concern was, to require implicit contracts,
as an individual entity, in order to exist for an obligation to come
into being, for a simple bartering deal or supermarket shopping. If, on
the other side, the obligation comes into being by an accomplished fact,
this is more than a proposition. Also, an "open account" means that
obligations sum up by facts, not by contractual terms.
So, I am confused why the obligation should not be a Temporal Entity,
and I question that simple obligations from bartering should be
described in terms of social contracts.
> For example:
> The SIG “believes” in the Obligation that Martin owes the SIG some
> homework that was assigned to him in the 44^th SIG meeting in Paris.
> Martin does not have any knowledge of that homework as he was not
> present, but the social norm allows for homework (obligations) to be
> assigned to people without their explicit consent or knowledge. [And
> the homework to write something would, IMO, be a Creation, to my
> previous point]
> We might want to track when Martin becomes aware of the Obligation to
> do the homework, which would be the belief creation.
> When the email is written, the trigger event template is matched,
> executing the (likely implicit) activity plan to remove the obligation
> and thereby end the exchange activity.
I completely agree, and repeat we need not label the termination of
obligation as "exchange".
> Exchange is not necessarily a good label, it was just one that I took
> from Francesco’s ontology.
So, aren't you saying in the end the same as I do? Aren't we in the same
world? (sometimes I am not sure and feel like an ET;-))
> George, Stephen please correct my slightly hazy ;) memory of the
> *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
> Systematically, as we model historical reality and not planned
> behaviour, I have concerns about a model that restricts anticipation
> to an ideal.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> 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
> Email:martin at ics.forth.gr <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>
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,
Email: martin at ics.forth.gr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig