Thanks Chris, (01)
I have always used the term "fungible" to mean easily exchangeable. That
is, there is a legal structure within which it can be traded. In that
sense, real estate is fungible to the extent that it can be financed, sold,
and traded for other real estate. (02)
Yes, trading sometimes happens when a young owner of a small property trades
her equity as a down payment for purchasing the larger property. The young
person moving up has grown equity through appreciation and offers it to the
old owner who is staging her conversion of capital gains to trade down for
smaller properties and spendable cash for her equity. (03)
I can see from this discussion that ontological considerations about
financial transactions seem to add engineering time (therefore cost) to any
software which present handles transactions in the usual databased
relational way. If the subject is that ontologically complex, perhaps it
should be avoided in favor of something more ontologically simple. At least
for the first seven discussions or so. (04)
-Rich (05)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Partridge
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 11:18 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring scenario (07)
I suspect we can discuss this until the cows come home :-) - and I do not
have the time at the moment. (08)
But, if you make a loan, then having the right to be repaid does not
guarantee you will be repaid. So the parallel with free speech seems close. (09)
While the rights are intangible, surely the exercise of them is not. (010)
Is property (real estate?) fungible?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility) I would have thought not. I would
have thought many houses are not capable of mutual substitution.
Are equities tangible (in your sense) - again I would have thought not - at
least not in an obvious way. (011)
BTW I did not make the suggestion lightly. I was involved in some real
estate / cadastral ontology work some time age - and this was useful in
helping to understand that many real estate transactions involve rights - or
that ownership is often/usually about rights (there is. As someone will
point out a 'bundle of rights' theory of ownership).
I have been involved in ontologies for the financial sector for quite a
while, and I find thinking this way is useful - especially when one gets to
more esoteric transactions. (012)
However, perhaps I should stop here. I have two deadlines looming.
Good luck with your analysis. (013)
Chris (014)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
> Sent: 11 January 2011 18:14
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Modeling a money transferring scenario
>
> 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
> (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|