Hi Chris, (01)
Hmmm, "rights" have other connotations. You have a right to free speech in
the US, but you can be shouted down by another person, also with rights to
free speech. Rights are fully intangible, whereas property, and perhaps
even most forms of value, are more fungible. (02)
I still prefer "exchange of value" as the essential purpose of a
transaction, though that term is admittedly ambiguous because the value
person A places on X is distinct from the value that person B places on the
same X. So even the economic sense of "value" sits crosswise in its
implications. (03)
I dunno.
-Rich (04)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (05)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:56 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring scenario (06)
Hi, (07)
I would suggest, as I think someone earlier said, of thinking in terms of
transfer of rights. (08)
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. (09)
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). (010)
> 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 (011)
Chris (012)
> -----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
> (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|