Issue 408: Rights Model Enriched

Starting Date: 
2019-03-13
Working Group: 
3
Status: 
Open
Background: 

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 Statements.org 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.