This discussion is heading for the breakdown that seems to plague every
discussion of Ontology. (01)
Sooner or later, the definition of terms turns into naming of terms
argument. "I agree with you about what it is, I just think that the name
you have given it reminds me of something else or normally includes this
other feature that is not a property of this thing". And away we go.... (02)
I sometimes wonder if ontological discussions should be limited to a
week before they have to be moved to a formal tool. (03)
On 11/01/2011 12:32 PM, doug foxvog wrote:
> On Tue, January 11, 2011 11:28, Rich Cooper said:
>> 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, ...)
> This strikes me as an attribute [I almost wrote "property" 8)#] of the
>> and the actual "property" is the economic value of the thing
>> called property.
> A "value" would be an intangible. Again, i would treat this as an
> attribute of the transaction.
>> 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.
> It is a useful distinction for many purposes. For the specific purpose
> of ontologizing transactions it may not be.
>> 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.
> I question the "willing". One can model coerced willingness, in which the
> compelled party submits to the transaction to avoid dire consequences
> (broken kneecaps, imprisonment, death), but in most models, this would not
> be considered to be willing.
>> Within accounting, all transactions are two directional. Since the
>> accounting equation establishes the sign of each transfer, every
>> is movement of one resource to another, followed by a compensating
>> transfer in the other direction.
> Note that a single party may transfer money between two accounts.
>> But the important issue in that discussion is: how is a free exchange of
>> property conducted?
> Free exchange is a subclass of all exchanges. For financial purposes,
> this constraint seems unneeded.
>> 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.
> There seems to be a typo in the above sentence.
> -- doug foxvog
>> Rich Cooper
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> reverse direction, unless offset by yet another party to the
>>> 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
>>> pens or Quicken, and every transfer, by that practice, involves
>>> 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,
>>> intangible part of the transfer is described by a name or a descriptive
>> The money is often intangible. So are services they pay for.
>> -- doug f
>>> Rich Cooper
>>> 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
>>>> of that transaction can be ontologized, but there is a problem in
>>>> exactly what it was that was
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> price for the identical (or similar) thing from a different source.
>>> For purchasing ontologies, sure. There are many code sets for such
>>> 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
>>>> represented in the buyer and seller's semantic models.
>>>> Rich Cooper
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
>>> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx
>> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx
> 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/
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 (06)