Issue 475: Transfer of Custody

ID: 
475
Starting Date: 
2020-02-24
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

Posted by Robert Sanderson on 19/2/2020

Dear all,

 

At a recent Linked Art meeting we were discussing Exhibitions and the relationship to displays and art gallery presentations. In reading the fine print, so to speak, of the Transfer of Custody scope note, we noticed and would appreciate clarification about the following:

 

> This class comprises transfers of physical custody of objects between instances of E39 Actor. 

 

But then…

 

> The distinction between the legal responsibility for custody and the actual physical possession of the object should be expressed using the property P2 has type (is type of). 

So, the question is whether a transfer of legal custody can be modeled with E10, if either we do not know that physical custody was involved or if we know that it was not.

Some examples:

    Rob auctions his copy of LaRoche’s “Three Red Wolves” on Ebay. Does Ebay have custody of it in order to facilitate the sale?
    Rob sells his house. Clearly the house is not in the physical possession of anyone other than me, but while the sale is pending, I have ascribed some degree of legal custody to others?
    We do not know whether the original object is physically present at an auction house or not. If it’s a big statue, maybe the auction house only has a photograph of it. Even if it’s a painting, the original may not be there (it might have been viewable in a controlled environment previously for example). In these cases, there is enough legal custody to be able to negotiate the sale, but it is unknown whether there was explicitly physical custody.  Ditto for consignment of objects.

If E10 is only for physical custody, then how would we describe legal-but-not-physical custody? And if we can just use a P2 on the E10, then it would be great to change the first line of the scope note to address that.

 

Current Proposal: 

In the 46th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 39th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting; the crm-sig discussed that since the scope note for E10 Transfer of Custody is not all too well understood, it probably it needs revising. The sig assigned   RS to propose new scope note that resolves ambiguities. 

Athens, February 2020

Posted by George on 24/6/2020

Dear all,

In accordance with protocols, here is the proposed HW from issue 475.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19UzeqmPqVH9c_RAVPvJ7SIz60WjJ4Jy-6oBftfaogWE/edit

 

Posted by Robert on 25/6/2020

Homework from yesterday for issue 475 -- fix the first sentence of the second paragraph of the scope notes for Transfer of Custody to reflect the new understanding as described in the new first sentence of the first paragraph.

Old sentence:

The distinction between the legal responsibility for custody and the actual physical possession of the object should be expressed using the property P2 has type (is type of).

New sentence:

In the event that only a single kind of transfer of custody, either the legal responsibility for the custody or the actual physical possession of the object but not both, is represented by the E10 Transfer of Custody, this difference should be expressed using the property P2 has type (is type of).

Posted by Robert on 25/6/2020

As noted in the working document for 475, the changes are generally accepted, and thus we should also add an example.

I propose:

* The legal responsibility for physical custody (but not actual physical custody) of a large statue is transferred from the statue's private owner to the Sotheby's auction house to facilitate its sale.

Posted by Martin on 25/6/2020

Dear Robert,

This is a correct example, but it is categorical. By rule, such examples may go into the scope note, if particularly useful. Please find a real, particular example.

In the 47th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 40th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting; the SIG members support the proposal, and discussed how to best formulate the scope note. There was extensive editing on the first sentence of the scope note but for lack of time, RS volunteered to fix the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph by session 2.3 as HW. 
The details can be found here

 

June 2020

Posted by George on 6/10/2020

Dear all,

In the last CRM SIG (47) we discussed issue 475 which has to do with a change to the scope note of E10 Transfer of Custody. R. Sanderson noted that the scope note seemed to contain a contradiction since the first line indicated that the transfer of custody was of 'physical possession' while the second paragraph indicated that it could be of physical possession OR only of legal custody. 

 

R. Sanderson proposed to update the scope note in order to consistently express that the base line case is that BOTH physical and legal custody are transferred and in the case that it is only one or the other this would be expressed using the p2 has type property. 

 

This proposal was generally accepted and the work of creating the precise wording was left as homework. This HW has been provided by R Sanderson and is in a good state for voting on. 

 

Please find below the text of the old and the new scope note. After having read them, please vote by replying to this email whether to accept this change. 

 

You may vote Yes, Yes with a caveat or No, indicating the reason for rejecting the proposal.

 

Please indicate your vote by October 16th.

 

Changes marked in blue

-----

 

OLD scope note

E10 Transfer of Custody 

Subclass of: E7 Activity 

Scope note: This class comprises transfers of physical custody of objects between instances of E39 Actor. The recording of the donor and/or recipient is optional. It is possible that in an instance of E10 Transfer of Custody there is either no donor or no recipient. Depending on the circumstances it may describe: 

1. the beginning of custody 

2. the end of custody 

3. the transfer of custody 

4. the receipt of custody from an unknown source 

5. the declared loss of an object 

The distinction between the legal responsibility for custody and the actual physical possession of the object should be expressed using the property P2 has type (is type of). A specific case of transfer of custody is theft. The sense of physical possession requires that the object of custody is in the hands of the keeper at least with a part representative for the whole. The way, in which a representative part is defined, should ensure that it is unambiguous who keeps a part and who the whole and should be consistent with the identity criteria of the kept instance of E18 Physical Thing. For instance, in the case of a set of cutlery we may require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of the actor regardless which individual pieces are kept over time. 

The interpretation of the museum notion of "accession" differs between institutions. The CIDOC CRM therefore models legal ownership and physical custody separately. Institutions will then model their specific notions of accession and deaccession as combinations of these. 

Examples:  

  • the delivery of the paintings by Secure Deliveries Inc. to the National Gallery the return of Picasso’s “Guernica” to Madrid’s Prado in 1981 (Chipp, 1988) 

In First Order Logic: 

E10(x) ⊃ E7(x) 

Properties: 

P28 custody surrendered by (surrendered custody through): E39 Actor 

P29 custody received by (received custody through): E39 Actor 

P30 transferred custody of (custody transferred through): E18 Physical Thing

NEW scope note

E10 Transfer of Custody 

Subclass of: E7 Activity 

Scope note: This class comprises transfers of the physical custody, or the legal responsibility for the physical custody, of objects. The recording of the donor or recipient is optional. It is possible that in an instance of E10 Transfer of Custody there is either no donor or no recipient. Depending on the circumstances it may describe: 

1. the beginning of custody (there is no previous custodian)

2. the end of custody (there is no subsequent custodian)

3. the transfer of custody (transfer from one custodian to the next)

4. the receipt of custody from an unknown source (the previous custodian is unknown)

5. the declared loss of an object (the current or subsequent custodian is unknown)

In the event that only a single kind of transfer of custody, either the legal responsibility for the custody or the actual physical possession of the object but not both, this difference should be expressed using the property P2 has type (is type of).  A specific case of transfer of custody is theft. The sense of physical possession requires that the object of custody is in the hands of the keeper at least with a part representative for the whole. The way, in which a representative part is defined, should ensure that it is unambiguous who keeps a part and who the whole and should be consistent with the identity criteria of the kept instance of E18 Physical Thing. For instance, in the case of a set of cutlery we may require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of the actor regardless which individual pieces are kept over time. 

The interpretation of the museum notion of "accession" differs between institutions. The CIDOC CRM therefore models legal ownership and physical custody separately. Institutions will then model their specific notions of accession and deaccession as combinations of these. 

Examples:  

  • the delivery of the paintings by Secure Deliveries Inc. to the National Gallery the return of Picasso’s “Guernica” to Madrid’s Prado in 1981 (Chipp, 1988) 

In First Order Logic: 

E10(x) ⇒ E7(x) 

Properties: 

P28 custody surrendered by (surrendered custody through): E39 Actor 

P29 custody received by (received custody through): E39 Actor 

P30 transferred custody of (custody transferred through): E18 Physical Thing

 

Posted by Robert Sanderson on 6/10/2020

YES

Posted by Martin on 6/10/2020

Dear All,

I vote YES, with a minor correction (verb missing):

"In the event that only a single kind of transfer of custody, either the legal responsibility for the custody or the actual physical possession of the object but not both, this difference should be expressed using the property P2 has type (is type of)."

should be:
"In the event that only a single kind of transfer of custody is to be documented, either the legal responsibility for the custody or the actual physical possession of the object but not both, this difference should be expressed using the property P2 has type (is type of)."
 

Posted by Martijn Van Leusen on 7/10/2020

I vote YES, with a caveat about the formulation of the scope note:

In the event that only a single kind of transfer of custody (verb missing), either the legal responsibility for the custody or the actual physical possession of the object but not both, this difference should be expressed using the property P2 has type (is type of).  A specific case of transfer of (this type of) custody is theft. The sense of physical possession requires that the object of custody is in the hands of the keeper at least with a part representative for the whole (this latter part is not clear: do you mean that at least a part of the object should be in the hands of the keeper?). The way, (remove comma) in which a representative part is defined, should ensure that it is unambiguous who keeps a part and who the whole and should be consistent with the identity criteria of the kept instance of E18 Physical Thing. For instance, in the case of a set of cutlery we may require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of the actor regardless which individual pieces are kept over time.  

 

Posted by Oyvind on 11/10/2020

I vote YES with the caveat that the examples should be looked at again and made easier to understand by rephrasing and adding some context to the cases. I can give more details to my issues with them if wanted. 

Posted by Christian Emil on 12/10/2020

Yes,

Posted by George on 12/10/2020

Yes,

Posted by Pat on 12/10/2020

I vote Yes, but also support the editorial correction from Martijn below (that a verb is missing in the first line of that paragraph--which is supplied by Martin, and a comma is too much, and that the explanation of parts in regards to theft could be clearer).

Posted by George on 18/10/2020

Dear all,
Thanks for your input. The results of the evote will be discussed at the SIG this week. There were some caveats on the yesses, which I have tried to address in a small rewrite. You can see the slightly updated scope note below:

Scope note taking into account caveats:

Scope note: This class comprises transfers of the physical custody or the legal responsibility for the physical custody of objects. The recording of the donor or recipient is optional. It is possible that in an instance of E10 Transfer of Custody there is either no donor or no recipient. 

Depending on the circumstances it may describe: 

1. the beginning of custody (there is no previous custodian)

2. the end of custody (there is no subsequent custodian)

3. the transfer of custody (transfer from one custodian to the next)

4. the receipt of custody from an unknown source (the previous custodian is unknown)

5. the declared loss of an object (the current or subsequent custodian is unknown)

In the event that only a single kind of transfer of custody occurs, either the legal responsibility for the custody or the actual physical possession of the object but not both, this difference should be expressed using the property P2 has type (is type of).  

The sense of physical possession requires that the object of custody is in the hands of the keeper at least with a part representative for the whole. The way, in which a representative part is defined, should ensure that it is unambiguous who keeps a part and who the whole and should be consistent with the identity criteria of the kept instance of E18 Physical Thing. For instance, in the case of a set of cutlery we may require the majority of pieces having been in the hands of the actor regardless which individual pieces are kept over time. 

The interpretation of the museum notion of "accession" differs between institutions. The CIDOC CRM therefore models legal ownership and physical custody separately. Institutions will then model their specific notions of accession and deaccession as combinations of these. 

Theft is a specific case of illegal transfer of custody

Examples:

  • the delivery of the paintings by Secure Deliveries Inc. to the National Gallery

  • the return of Picasso’s “Guernica” to Madrid’s Prado in 1981 (Chipp, 1988)

I think that the theft idea is totally separate to the question of representative parts so I simply separated them from one another. Otherwise I implemented the introduction of a verb and the fixing of commas (I think). 

Oyvind, I have not changed the examples though almost all examples are going through a review anyhow. What were your thoughts.