As attribute of the transaction, parties A and B can be characterized
by the value they individually place on the transaction, both the Before and
the After transactional value.
DF:> 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
I would consider it willing in the sense I use that term. I would
prefer to pay all the money in my wallet to any robbers who would otherwise
break my knee caps. So it is still a clear and free exchange. I
could have decided to fight the robber and break he knee caps, but I chose the
You're right about the type - the sentence should have been:
"If both parties DO get the value they want in the property they
receive, and give the value they want in the property they give, then the
exchange is valid and free."
Sorry for the confusion,
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:32 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring scenario
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
> 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
> 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
> with proper legal construal, it all fits.
It is a useful distinction for many purposes. For the specific
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
> is a good one. In law, property is often construed to mean
> financial value since the purpose of the judiciary is to right
> transferring such properties among litigants.
> So my point, interpreted my way, is that every transaction is a
> transfer of property A (e.g. land) to party 2 and simultaneous
> property B (e.g. money) to party 1. Party 1 is the seller in
> 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
be considered to be willing.
> Within accounting, all transactions are two directional.
> 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
> property conducted?
Free exchange is a subclass of all exchanges. For financial
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
> 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
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 7:35 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring
> On Fri, January 7, 2011 22:32, Rich Cooper said:
>> Hi Doug,
>> It is still true that every money transaction involves a two
>> of property, by the definition of a transaction.
> This is different from the prior claim of it being a
> However, as i see it, a two way transfer, need not be one of
> 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
> 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
> the gift. The giver looses ownership and user rights to the
>> Transfer of money from account 1 to account 2 is a transfer of
>> 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
>> contributor, perhaps, that warms her heart.
>> Accountants glory in double entry bookkeeping from before the
>> pens or Quicken, and every transfer, by that practice,
>> 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
>> intangible part of the transfer is described by a name or a
> 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
>> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 6:35 PM
>> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring
>> 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
>>> exactly what it was that was
>> This would be either goods, services, or some combination of
>> Martin Hepp's Good Relations ontology covers much of this
>>> 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
>>> price for the identical (or similar) thing from a
>> For purchasing ontologies, sure. There are many code
sets for such
>> See the various Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) messaging
>> Those which haven't yet been ontologized, can certainly be so
>> Commerce has been happy with these code sets for decades, so
>> 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
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 11:03 AM
>>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring
>>> On Thu, January 6, 2011 7:29 AM, Selcuk Bozdag said:
>>>> Hi ontologs,
>>>> I would like to get your ideas about modeling a
>>>> 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,
>>>> Account. When it comes to represent a money transfer
>>>> accounts, I suggested to create another class named
>>>> which one can create object properties such as
>>>> etc. On the flip side, others put the MoneyTransfer
class aside and
>>>> preferred to create an object property named
>>>> has a domain and range of Account. However it is
>>>> transfersMoney property is just a relation between to
>>>> representing none of the date and amount information.
>>> There should be many things that can be said about
>>> transfers: date; amount transferred; origination and
>>> accounts; originator; statuses such as fee (of what type),
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx
> doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx
"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
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/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