Issue 408: Rights Model Enriched

Starting Date: 
Working Group: 

Posted by George Bruseker on 13/3/2019

Dear all,

As part of the work on CRMSoc, I have been looking at the possible extension of information around rights in order to make the model more robust and suitable to actual needs. The proposed modelling has been created in dialogue with the previous documented issues regarding this question and also in conversation with several other SIG members including Nicola, Rob, Thanasis and Francesco amongst others.
The proposal to extend the modelling around rights relates back to issues: 172, 330, 335, and 343. I propose to open the discussion of this during the upcoming SIG without necessarily wishing to close it. In the meantime we have had contact with Rights who are interested to contribute their expertise on this question and would likewise be able to attend the SIG in Paris in June. Nevertheless, it seems like it would be good to do the groundwork in Heraklion on the basic issues, so that we could hopefully proceed to create a more useful modelling of this topic in the near future.
Current Proposal: 

In the 43rd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 36th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed GB homework and discussed about the adoption of the following classes and properties to CRMsoc

(1) socExx Jurisdiction (subclass of E4 Period).
(2) socPxx has governing body [D: socExx Jurisdiction, R: some subclass of E74 Group, such as “sovereign people” or E39 Actor
(3) pxx has temporal validity [D: E30 Right, E52 Time-Span],

Also the sig decided to 

  • Activity Plans and Rights to be discussed together
  • The issues described in the issues 172, 330, 335, 343 are to be merged into 408
  • The deprecated FRBR classes F51 Pursuit and F52 Name Use Activity to be introduced to CRMsoc in a new issue (issue 413).

 Heraklion, March 2019

In the 44th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 37th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, having reviewed the Rights Model extended by Ownership Phase and events causing it (HW by GB), the sig came to the decision that more thought is to be put on different types of rights transfer (custody/ownership/other types found on documentation), as well as on the relations for contracts and the legal framework dictating the rights to be exerted on a legal object. 
HW: to GB & AI to establish these relations. 
HW: to TV, RS, SS to reflect on how E89 (as a propositional object that defines the temporal validity of a right exerted on a legal object) relates to Activity Plans and Trigger Event Templates and come up with a proposal.
HW: GB to draft scope notes for classes and properties relevant for Rights Model (see below)
•    socExx Jurisdiction (isA E4 Period)
•    socPxx has governing body [D: socExx Jurisdiction, R: E39/E74/subclass of E74??]
•    Pxx has jurisdictional validity [D:E30, R:E53] 
•    Pxx has temporal validity [D:E30, R: E52]
•    Pxx applies right [D:E30, R: E29]
•    socExx Right Holding (isA socE3 Ownership isA socE1 Bond isA E2 Temporal Entity)
•    Pxx initiates [D:E8, R: Right Holding]
•    socPxx holds on [D: socExx Right Holding, R: E30]
•    socPxx held by [D: socExx Right Holding, R: E39]
HW: AI to come up with a proposal on a superclass of E29 and E30 (maybe “Policy”?), to be discussed in the next sig.  

Paris, June 2019

Posted by Thanasis on 20/10/2019

Dear all,

Part of the homework for 408 was to consider Activity Plan to model the temporal validity of rights. Rob and I had some quick thoughts. This was in relation to the example of the death of an author + 70 years before the work becomes public domain.

Option 1:
Assign two Trigger Event Templates to an Activity Plan, one to describe the death event and the other to describe the length of 70 years, with a new property putting the two in temporal order.

Option 2:
Have two separate Activity Plans with their respective Trigger Event Templates initiating the next Activity Plan or terminating the Right Holding. "P148 has component" can be used to express parts of Activity Plans (which is a wider issue and is not drawn here).

The use of "P191 had duration" should be discussed in both cases - it is unclear whether the property should always apply to observations about the past.

Perhaps we can discuss next week.

In the 45th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 38th FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meetingupon discussing how to model the example of IPR on a creation becoming public domain 70 years following a creator’s decease (example by TV and RS) making use of Trigger Event Templates and Activity Plans, the sig realized that it would be premature to decide on either alternative presented by TV at this point.

DECISION: MD is to find references regarding Intellectual Property Rights (look up already existing models that converge with current practices in the domain of documentation of IPR) and share them with TV, RS, GB, FB, NC and others working on the rights model.

Heraklion, October 2019

In the 50th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and SO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 43nd FRBR – CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the SIG briefly discussed this issue and reached the conclusion that elaborating concepts such as Institutional Facts and Activity plans further, should help resolve the issue.

A few remarks:

  • Rights form instances of Activity Plan of sorts. They can also be seen as instances of Institutional Fact. They foresee reactions to situations.
  • There should be some path to connect institutional facts to rights that goes through Activity Plans in CRMsoc. 
  • CRMsoc should be the home for Rights, Law being the specialization of Social Representations that has acquired some official status. 

June 2021

In the 57th CIDOC CRM & 50th FRBR/LRMoo SIG Meeting, the SIG discussed what to do wrt to this issue (and all others that relate to CRMsoc: 580, 557, 586, 413, 573). 

The last development was when MD shared some bibliography on IPR with the CRMsoc group. At the time, GB didn’t have the time to look at it before the 50th SIG meeting. However, any progress in the SIG has been blocked by lack of developments in CRMsoc. 
There are other issues that have been blocked as a result of that, and the SIG needs to determine how to proceed with respect to issues stemming from CRMsoc. 
MF, GH, CEO (to name but a few) have expressed a need for a stable version of CRMsoc. 
According to GB a large block of work is ready, and he is willing and able to share it with the SIG to be reviewed. 

HW: GH, CEO will be reading the documentation and datasets that support the modeling constructs in CRMsoc and the model as a whole will be reviewed in the spring 2024 meeting. 
Nb. Be on the lookout for points of conversion with CRMinfluence. 

Marseille, October 2023