[Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Normal Custodian Of?

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Fri Mar 20 19:16:31 EET 2020


Dear Robert,

On 3/16/2020 8:10 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> Thanks Martin!
>
> I would be happy with the temporary being explicit for the keeper, but 
> then we have an inconsistency between location and custodian.  Would 
> the same apply for location as well?
>
Probably, but I am not so much concerned about this case in the first 
place. The analogy is is not so straightforward, and the "current 
permanent location" may need a better definition. The intentionality 
behind the "current permanent location" may be modeled in a more robust 
way, may be more explicitly associated with the keeper.

So, let us first understand the keeper. The temporary keeper does not 
remove responsibilities from the permanent one, she only reduces the 
immediacy of physical control by the permanent one. The permanent keeper 
will continue to control that the object will come back. The current 
permanent location on the other side does not have any agency of its 
own, and hence nothing to make it permanent.

> This would mean that we can be clear that there is an exceptional, 
> temporary circumstance that should be expected to revert back to the 
> normal circumstances in the future. I have a temporary work location 
> of my home, but when this pesky virus has gone, it will go back to 
> being my office at the Getty Center.
>
Yes, needs analysis of what agency determines which. Normally, the 
employer foresees the office for the employee. If you are your own boss, 
you would declare the residence of your business to the authorities.
>
> In terms of the types of transfers … yes, but there might be many 
> types of transfers which are either permanent or temporary. It would 
> be nightmarish to try and track which were which without some 
> consistent method to flag them.  Indeed Guernica’s travels around the 
> world are a great example of the complexity here!
>
Sure, but this can be done! You can try formulating a vocab for these 
types of transfer, you have all the experts at hand:-)
.

Could we get a complete record of Guernica's travel as example? If we 
have more than one temporary keeper nested, then any attempt to model 
this by a new property appears to be invalidated. We could only trace 
the types of transfer. Imagine, an object on loan goes to the 
conservation department of the receiving institute, and there it is stolen.

There are many such parts in the CRM that wait for elaboration of 
suitable vocabs.

Best,

martin

> Rob
>
> *From: *Crm-sig <crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr> on behalf of Martin 
> Doerr <martin at ics.forth.gr>
> *Date: *Saturday, March 7, 2020 at 7:48 AM
> *To: *"crm-sig at ics.forth.gr" <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
> *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Normal Custodian Of?
>
> Dear Robert, All,
>
> I see the point, but propose another solution. I have even proposed to 
> deprecate "current permanent location", because the "permanent" is 
> hard to be objectified, and here extremely specific to a certain 
> inventory practice.
>
> I'd rather argue, that the current keeper of an object that is handed 
> out for loan stays obliged for safe-guarding the object. So, a 
> property "has temporary keeper" would be much more informative, and 
> positively states what is happening. We should just accept a "current 
> keeper" being simultaneaously in charge with a "temporary keeper", and 
> the event of change of custody to the respective temporary keeper will 
> specify anyhow the character of the transfer.
>
> If transfers of custody are completely registered, as the examples 
> suggest, there is no need for further differentiations of stateful 
> properties, because the type of transfer can register that.
>
> In any case, think of "Guernica" ! Reality can be very complex;-)
>
> Best,
>
> Martin
>
> On 3/6/2020 12:10 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
>     Another use case which has come up:
>
>     A painting is given from the Paintings department, which is the
>     normal custodian, to the Conservation department, in order to
>     perform conservation work on it.
>
>     The Conservation department has custody of it, but the Paintings
>     department is still the normal custodian.  The ownership of the
>     object doesn’t change. And potentially the physical location of it
>     doesn’t either, if the conservation work is being done in place in
>     the gallery, such as the current work on the Nightwatch at the
>     Rijksmuseum, or Blue Boy at the Huntingdon here in California.
>
>     Rob
>
>     *From: *George Bruseker <george.bruseker at gmail.com>
>     <mailto:george.bruseker at gmail.com>
>     *Date: *Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 6:14 AM
>     *To: *Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu>
>     <mailto:RSanderson at getty.edu>
>     *Cc: *crm-sig <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr> <mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>
>     *Subject: *Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE: Normal Custodian Of?
>
>     It seems to make sense to raise as an issue. The case does seem to
>     come up reasonably frequently. The parallel seems convincing. For
>     the moment we could cover temporal elements by initiating the
>     existing of the property via an E13 attribute assignment (if we
>     had such info).
>
>
>
>
>         On Feb 15, 2020, at 2:33 AM, Robert Sanderson
>         <RSanderson at getty.edu <mailto:RSanderson at getty.edu>> wrote:
>
>         Apologies, I should have put NEW ISSUE in the subject for this
>         originally.
>
>         As a quick proposal to discuss:
>
>         With P54 has current permanent location as a precedent, I
>         would propose a Pxx has current permanent custodian as a new
>         property to manage the knowledge described in the email below.
>
>         Happy to work on a scope note for it if that’s a useful thing
>         to add to the ontology.
>
>         Rob
>
>         *From:*Robert Sanderson <RSanderson at getty.edu
>         <mailto:RSanderson at getty.edu>>
>         *Date:*Tuesday, January 7, 2020 at 12:24 PM
>         *To:*"crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>"
>         <crm-sig at ics.forth.gr <mailto:crm-sig at ics.forth.gr>>
>         *Subject:*Normal Custodian Of?
>
>         Dear fellow SIG folks,
>
>         Happy new year😊
>
>         A question came up here as to how to record the normal
>         custodian of an object, as opposed to the current custodian.
>
>         For example, if we have custody of an object but it’s a
>         permanent loan from a donor, and we lend it to another
>         organization for an exhibition, then the owner doesn’t change
>         (still the donor, probably wanting to remain anonymous) and
>         there’s a transfer of custody from ourselves to the exhibiting
>         organization.  If that’s a travelling exhibit, it might pass
>         through several custodians before it should eventually return
>         to us.
>
>         Is there a way to track this not-quite-an-owner but
>         not-just-the-current-custodian state?  The only way that I can
>         see is to model the right of permanent custody separate from
>         the right of temporary custody… but then we re-enter the
>         rights and temporal validity arena.  Perhaps this would be
>         another motivating use case for moving forward with that work?
>
>         Many thanks for your thoughts,
>
>         Rob
>
>         --
>
>         *Rob Sanderson*,**Semantic Architect  |  Getty Digital  |
>         getty.edu <http://getty.edu/>
>
>         <image001.jpg>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         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
>
>     	
>
>     *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not
>     click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and
>     know the content is safe.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     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
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------
>   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  <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>   
>   Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl  
>
> 	
>
> *CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Getty. Do not 
> click links or open attachments unless you verify the sender and know 
> the content is safe.*
>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------
  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/20200320/33a82f5a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list