ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Mike Bennett <mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:34:19 +0000
Message-id: <4D2CA2AB.4090809@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At the most general level what is exchanged at the transaction is 
commitments (typically a commitment to deliver something or 
provide some service, set against a commitment to settle with 
cash or to deliver something else in exchange).    (01)

But we are reinventing REA here.    (02)

Mike    (03)

On 11/01/2011 18:14, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I dunno.
> -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 Chris Partridge
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:56 AM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring scenario
>
> Hi,
>
> I would suggest, as I think someone earlier said, of thinking in terms of
> transfer of rights.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
>> 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
>
> Chris
>
>> -----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
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>    (04)


-- 
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068    (05)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (06)

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