CRMsoc definition

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.

In the 44th joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 37th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting, the sig reviewed FB’s HW on the Introductory text of CRMsoc. An issue raised (CEO) during the meeting was the relevance of the last paragraph, regarding the reference to the usage of OntoME to develop the ontology. It was debated whether this particular paragraph is relevant to the scope of the CRMsoc. However, it became evident that this section is not about general methodological principles but an actual description of the work undertaken in order to build this particular model. The text was not considered redundant after all, but was decided to be enhanced and placed in a different section on the crm site.  

The sig edited and accepted the Introductory text of CRMsoc (HW by FB) as the definition of the model (post editing). 
The separate section on using OntoME to collaboratively build the ontology will be formed on the basis of the existing text. Once it is ready, the issue will be closed.
HW: FB and VA are to provide the section on OntoME usage.

The updated introductory text can be found here.

Paris, June 2019

Posted by Thanasis Velios on 18/10/2019

Most of this is for Francesco and Vincent, but I had a small part of the homework which was to add a sentence to the introductory text to clarify that CRMsoc is under development. So here is the text again with the added sentence in the end:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
What is CRMsoc?
CRMsoc is a formal ontology for integrating data about social phenomena and constructs that are of interest in the humanities and social science based on analysis of documentary evidence. The scope of CRMsoc is the following areas of analysis:
    • Characteristics of human beings, as individuals or groups
    • Social relations, including between people, between people and groups, and between groups
    • Rights and duties
    • Economic activities, including relations between people and things, such as financial transactions leading to ownership
    • Plans, including expressing proposed activities and legislation
    • Evaluations, including assessing risks and estimating the value of things
CRMsoc uses and extends the CIDOC CRM (ISO21127): a general ontology of human activity, things and events happening in space-time. It uses the same encoding-neutral formalism of knowledge representation (“data model” in the sense of computer science) as the CIDOC CRM, which can be implemented in RDFS, OWL, in an RDBMS and in other forms of encoding.
--------------
CRMsoc is currently in active development and we welcome comments and contributions to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Posted by Francesco Beretta on 20/10/2019

Hi,

I agree with the addition proposed by Thanasis.

I'd propose on my side to add the few words between * * in the text below belonging to the "What is the idea ?" section.

"CRMsoc can be used to describe *characteristics of individuals or groups*, economic transactions, rights held by people and groups, historical phases and the description of plans. As a high level conceptual framework for data integration the CIDOC CRM and the CRMsoc extension will provide interoperability of existing models devoted to specific historical subdomains (e.g. political, intellectual, social, economic history). "

Further, I propose to validate and publish both sections of the introductory text ( it can be found here) —with the proposed additions if validated by the SIG— on the CRMsoc extension website – for preventing that it remains empty longer.

About the text concerning the use of OntoME, we're working hard (with the available resources) to come to a MVP of the web application: should be done by the end of this year.  Some research projects are starting to use OntoME for data production and integration (cf. the presentation in the APOLLONIS workshop tomorrow Monday). I therefore propose to wait until the next SIG meeting to discuss on a possible section about the use of OntoME ( separate section on using OntoME ).

Posted by Francesco Beretta on 20/10/2019

Hi,

About this same issue I propose to change the labelling of CRMsoc from "Model for Social Documentation" to "Model for Social Phenomena" because we model the phenomena themselves, not the documentation about them. Also "social documentation" sounds surprising and somewhat unusual.