ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring scenario

To: <tara_athan@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:35:04 -0800
Message-id: <20110111163509.F0B4E138D0F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Tara,

 

Agreed.  The transfer of VALUE might be a better way to describe this than the transfer of PROPERTY if the word PROPERTY has so many meanings to so many people.  In law, it can mean real property (land), personal property (car, clothes), or whatever was paid for some other property in a transaction.  

 

Thanks,

-Rich

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2


From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tara Athan
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:06 PM
To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring scenario

 

In any transaction there may be some intangibles gained and some intangibles lost by both parties.


Value_to_recipient(tangible received) + Value_to_recipient(intangibles gained) >= Value_to_recipient(funds provided) + Value_to_recipient(intangibles lost)
Value_to_provider(tangible delivered) + Value_to_provider(intangibles lost ) <= Value_to_provider(funds received) + Value_to_provider(intangibles gained)

Tangibles include services (perdurant, not endurant but still an entity).
A gift is just the case of funds provided/received but no tangible received/delivered, so intangibles, such as intrinsic satisfaction play a big role.

Recommend tangibles should be modeled, intangibles not. Otherwise, you have to consider rival or non-rival use, valuation is highly controversial, And then there are secondary costs and benefits - to those that are not involved in the transaction at all. You could bring in costs and benefits to ecological systems as in ecological econmics, etc, etc. Start simple, then build. With an inequality, you don't have to include everything.

Tara

doug foxvog wrote:

On Fri, January 7, 2011 22:32, Rich Cooper said:
  
Hi Doug,
    
 
  
It is still true that every money transaction involves a two way transfer
of property, by the definition of a transaction.
    
 
This is different from the prior claim of it being a "purchase".
 
However, as i see it, a two way transfer, need not be one of property.  I
do not consider a service (or gratitude) as property.  Perhaps the right
to a service could be modeled as property, and when paying for a service,
one actually pays for the right to that service.  The exercising of the
right would be one or more events.
 
However, an anonymous giver does not receive gratitude in exchange for
the gift.  The giver looses ownership and user rights to the gift.
 
  
Transfer of money from account 1 to account 2 is a transfer of debt in the
reverse direction, unless offset by yet another party to the transaction,
such as the gift, making it still more complicated, but still a two way
transaction - the lucky one receiving the gift returns a smile to the
contributor, perhaps, that warms her heart.
    
 
  
Accountants glory in double entry bookkeeping from before the days of
quill
pens or Quicken, and every transfer, by that practice, involves something
going both ways so the books can stay balanced.  That is also true of
taxes, fines and loans.
    
 
This can be modeled.
 
  
But whether all transactions or just most of them are double arrowed, the
intangible part of the transfer is described by a name or a descriptive
phrase.
    
 
The money is often intangible.  So are services they pay for.
 
-- doug f
 
  
-Rich
 
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 6:35 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring scenario
 
On Thu, January 6, 2011 14:17, Rich Cooper said:
    
Doug, Selchuck, et al,
 
Every money transaction is based on purchasing something
      
There are many other sorts of money transactions:
* Transactions between accounts of the same entity
* Monetary gifts
* Taxes (other than sales taxes)
* Fines
* Loans
 
    
whether product or
service, for consumption, investment or entertainment.  Any effective
record
of that transaction can be ontologized, but there is a problem in
specifying
exactly what it was that was
<purchased/leased/rented/chartered/contracted>.
      
This would be either goods, services, or some combination of the two.
Martin Hepp's Good Relations ontology covers much of this topic.
 
    
Without both sides of the transaction being ontologized, its only value
is
for recording income and expense for taxes.
 
To be commercially effective, the thing that is acquired must also be
described in detail so that the price of one source can be compared with
the
price for the identical (or similar) thing from a different source.
      
For purchasing ontologies, sure.  There are many code sets for such
things.
See the various Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) messaging code sets.
Those which haven't yet been ontologized, can certainly be so coded.
 
Commerce has been happy with these code sets for decades, so there
should be little problem with their coverage.
 
-- doug foxvog
 
    
That will be a big obstacle to recording the transaction as it actually
is
represented in the buyer and seller's semantic models.
 
-Rich
 
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 11:03 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring scenario
 
 
On Thu, January 6, 2011 7:29 AM, Selcuk Bozdag said:
 
      
Hi ontologs,
 
I would like to get your ideas about modeling a financial
organization's (e.g. a bank)  money transaction ontology using OWL
(1). Suppose that a bank wants to track the accounts of the customers
in order to determine anomalies, fraud issues or just to ensure that
everything is OK at the end of the day. I have come up with a solution
which caused a discussion among my colleagues mostly ended with a
disagreement. Right below I am giving only a clipped portion of the
draft ontology at a glance.
 
The absolute classes(i.e. concepts) are Bank, Money, Customer and
Account. When it comes to represent a money transfer between two
accounts, I suggested to create another class named "MoneyTransfer" on
which one can create object properties such as transferDate, amount
etc. On the flip side, others put the MoneyTransfer class aside and
preferred to create an object property named "transfersMoney" which
has a domain and range of Account. However it is obvious that
transfersMoney property is just a relation between to individuals
representing none of the date and amount information.
        
There should be many things that can be said about individual money
transfers: date; amount transferred; origination and destination
accounts; originator; statuses such as fee (of what type), auto debit,
refund, ...; legal jurisdiction (and thus set of governing regulations);
currency of transfer, etc.  This certainly suggests that the individual
transactions should be individuals in the knowledge base.
 
There should be a hierarchy of types of monetary transactions, with
inter-account transfers being a subclass of both
MonetaryTransferIntoAccount
and MonetaryTransferOutOfAccount.  A transfer with the payer and payee
being the same should be a separate class of money transfer since
different reporting regulations would apply.
 
-- doug foxvog
 
      
I would greatly appreciate if you could explain your point of view and
show me what the alternatives could possibly be. I also would be
thankful if you refer any other ontology regarding that issue.
 
Cheers,
 
Selcuk
 
        
=============================================================
doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org
 
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
 
    
 
 
=============================================================
doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org
 
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
 
  




-- 
Tara Athan
Owner, Athan Ecological Reconciliation Services
tara_athan at alt2is.com
707-272-2115 (cell, preferred)
707-485-1198 (office)
249 W. Gobbi St. #A
Ukiah, CA 95482

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>