Issue 412: CRMsoc definition

Starting Date: 
2019-03-26
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

Posted by Chryssoula on 30/5/2019

In the the 43rd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 36th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig decided to close the issues 358, 333, 385 and forthcoming work on them to be documented in a new issue dedicated to definition of CRMsoc.

Heraklion, March 2019

Current Proposal: 

posted by Robert Sanderson on 27/3/2019

I hope that the SIG meeting is going well, and my (sincere) regrets for not being there!

To express a simple Acquisition of an object for some money: A SO5 contract initializes two SO3 obligations – one to transfer ownership, and one to pay the monetary amount. The E8 Acquisition terminates one, and the SO4 Payment terminates the other.

Meaning that there is a super-event that encapsulates both the payment and the acquisition, rather than that the acquisition subsumes the payment. Granted, the scope note of E8 does not talk about payments, exchanges, or anything else but our current, simpler and less capable model is just to have a Payment activity that is part of the Acquisition, and allow applications to infer that it is the provision that decreases the obligation. This would be in semantic conflict with the proposed model, where the Acquisition activity doesn’t include the Payment (or potentially any other fulfilment of an obligation).

Therefore, regardless of the outcome of the Soc work, could there be an issue to clarify the extent of the Acquisition class, and especially when it begins and ends? 

And, more procedurally, in slide 3, if I’m reading the arrows correctly, it proposes that Acquisition is a subclass of SO7 Service Action, which in turn is a subclass of SO2. This seems to break the rule that CRM Base classes are not subclasses of extensions?

posted by   Joao Alberto de Oliveira Lima wrote:

Dear Martin and Francesco,

About service ontology and social/legal bindings, I would like to recommend the following papers:

                J. CESAR NARDI, R. DE ALMEIDA FALBO, J. P. A. ALMEIDA, G. GUIZZARDI, L. F. PIRES, M. J. VAN SINDEREN, N. GUARINO, and C. M. FONSECA, “A commitment-based reference ontology for services,” Information Systems (Oxford), vol. 54, p. 263–288, 2015.

http://nemo.inf.ufes.br/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/a_commitment_based_reference_ontology_for_services_2015.pdf

                C. GRIFFO, J. P. A. ALMEIDA, G. GUIZZARDI, and J. C. NARDI, “From an Ontology of Service Contracts to Contract Modeling in Enterprise Architecture,” in 2017 IEEE 21st International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC), 2017, p. 40–49.

                https://nemo.inf.ufes.br/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/from_an_ontology_of_service_contracts_to_contract_modeling_in_enterprise_architecture_2017.pdf

                C. GRIFFO, J. P. A. ALMEIDA, and G. GUIZZARDI, “Conceptual Modeling of Legal Relations,” in Conceptual Modeling – 37th International Conference, ER 2018, 2018, p. 169–183.

                https://nemo.inf.ufes.br/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/conceptual_modeling_of_legal_relations_2018.pdf

Posted by Martin on 28/3/2019

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your comments! It's all in an embryonic state, far from being decided. Indeed, Acquisition and Purchase must somehow be integrated.  The SIG has relaxed to rule that CRMbase has to provide all superclasses iin Lyon. A more detailed formuation is in the text I sent about extensions. We had no time to go into detail in the meeting about the business model.

 

Posted by Francesco Beretta

Dear all,

In attachement you'll find a proposal for the CRMsoc presentation on the CIDOC CRM website. Let us discuss it in Paris.