Hi, (01)
I would suggest, as I think someone earlier said, of thinking in terms of
transfer of rights. (02)
A good example is buying or selling land (real estate) where you buy/sell a
bundle of rights - ownership of the land is just having those rights.
Then the product/service distinction become less material - as both product
and service are framed in terms of rights. (03)
In the financial sector, loans are a good example. The loan creates a right
for the lender to receive the money back (in the manner specified in the
loan agreement). (04)
> Within accounting, all transactions are two directional.
Interestingly, when people started to write about accounting (when printed
started) most books had four entries not two. It took a while for Paciolio's
two entry system (different from double entry) to take over (and it probably
did because it was easier to produce two rather than four entries). I have a
few papers on this - see for example,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.100.2604 (05)
Chris (06)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
> Sent: 11 January 2011 16:29
> To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx; '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring scenario
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I guess that, by "property", I mean both tangible items (as in land, car,
> dinner) and intangible (as in the product or service of providing land,
car,
> dinner, ...) and the actual "property" is the economic value of the thing
> called property. I was thinking of anything of value that can be traded.
> The distinction between product and service is an obfuscating factor, but
> with proper legal construal, it all fits.
>
> I agree that your interpretation of the word "property" is probably more
> typical of the way it is used in normal conversation though, so your point
is
> a good one. In law, property is often construed to mean the equivalent
> financial value since the purpose of the judiciary is to right wrongs by
> transferring such properties among litigants.
>
> So my point, interpreted my way, is that every transaction is a willing
> transfer of property A (e.g. land) to party 2 and simultaneous transfer of
> property B (e.g. money) to party 1. Party 1 is the seller in that example
and
> party 2 is the buyer.
>
> Within accounting, all transactions are two directional. Since the
accounting
> equation establishes the sign of each transfer, every transaction is
> movement of one resource to another, followed by a compensating transfer
> in the other direction.
>
> But the important issue in that discussion is: how is a free exchange of
> property conducted? If both parties don't get the value they want in the
> property they receive, and give the value they want in the property they
> transfer, then the exchange is valid and free.
>
> JMHO,
> -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: Monday, January 10, 2011 7:35 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring scenario
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> _
> 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
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|