Modelling ownership, possession etc.

[areleu]

Hello,

I am not completely sure if this belongs to issues or discussions. If it does not belong here just move it. I want to model ownership relationships between agents and material artifacts. What would be the approach you would recommend. I think the closer I can get to it with existing relations is by combining is used by:

x is_used_by y iff y is an instance of an Agent and x is an instance of a Material Entity, such that both x and y participate in some instance of a Process wherein y attempts to accomplish a goal by manipulating, deploying, leveraging some attribute of y.

and Act of Ownership:

An Act of Possession that includes an agent having certain rights and duties over the property owned.

So the relation is_owned_by would be something roughly like.

x is_owned_by y iff x participates in the Act of Ownership, z, accomplishing the right to possess y during z.

I am not entirely sure if this convinces me because it would imply that somehow I'm using my TV by owning it?(for instance I am actively using all my property right now). Of course this is just language as properly using my TV would be probably me participating in the process of watching TV or something like that. But my gut feeling tells me that there is probably a more fundamental relationship between Agents and Material entities, or maybe not. This is a bit confusing, so some help would be nice

Thanks in advance.

[Finn1928]

Hi! I agree it'd be strange to say you're using your TV merely by owning it. I don't think it's right to think of the TV's participation in an Act of Ownership is 'accomplishing' a right to possess the TV. It might help to instead refer to y having an ownership role that's realized by actions related to the TV. There could be Information prescribing the role and permitting those actions related to the TV.

[areleu]

So what you are suggesting is a pattern similar to what is already there for Infrastructure

Infratructure Element EquivalentTo (material entity and bearer of some Infrastructure Role).

The pattern would be something like:

Asset EquivalentTo (material entity and bearer of some Asset Role)

Using this model, Estate or Property becomes the sum of all of the assets belonging to an entity.

Two things bother me:

1. What is the right pattern to go from the role/individual assets/entire property to the owner. Is there a relation between realizable entities and ICs that does not directly require the IC to be the bearer if it. I had my eyes on material basis of but i am not entirely sure.

2. This model would exclude non-physical property like cryptocurrency or digital goods like video game skins (are these really owned), even a lot of other non-physical financial assets are often treated as peoples property. Would it make sense to include then all continuants in the definition of Asset, or just the union of Material Entity/GDC?

[areleu]

Regarding 1: I found has organizational context:

x has_organizational_context y iff y is an instance of an Organization and x is an instance of a Role and z is an instance of a Person, such that z's affiliation with y is a prerequisite for z bearing x or y ascribes x to the bearer of x.

Based on this I came up with this:

x has_agent_basis y iff y is an instance of an Agent, x is an instance of a Role, z is an instance of Continuant and there is at least one Agent w that acknowledges z bearing of x.

The wording is a bit sloppy, probably you can do it better, but what I want to point is that such a relation is subject to other agents (including the agent basis) acknowledging it, which allows the modelling of proclamations of ownership without ever committing to absolute ownership which, in my opinion, may be a complex topic.

[areleu]

There could be Information prescribing the role and permitting those actions related to the TV.

I think having a prescription works for some cases, like in the case of houses and cars. But more mundane things may be excluded, like gifts, street tacos and second hand clothes. Sometimes you may get a ticket confirming a transaction but in many cases you don't.

But ultimately, this information would be a concrete documentation of the agent basis I mentioned before isn't it?

[areleu]

Since I need this for my applications I will be modelling this directly on the ontology I am developing. For documentation I will share in case someone wants to implement something similar in CCO (after properly discussing it I can also implement it myself, I don't mind):

possesses: x possesses y iff x is an instance of an Agent and y is an instance of Material Artifact or Information Content Entity such that y bears the role of possession of x during some time t.

Example: By picking up a wallet I found on the street I posses it at that moment.

owns: x owns y iff x is an instance of an Agent and y is an instance of Material Artifact or Information Content Entity such as y exerts some externally acknowledged, time unlimited right of possession of y during time t.

Example: I own a computer I bought in the store, the store acknowledges this, their acknowledgment is concertized in an invoice.

borrows: x borrows y iff x is an instance of an Agent and y is an instance of Material Artifact or Information Content Entity such as y exerts some externally acknowledged, time constrained right of possession of y during time t.

Example: I borrow a car during my vacation, this is acknowledged by a contract.

Negative Example: If I take my brothers shirt to wear for a party without telling him, I am possessing it, not borrowing it because there is no acknowledgement.

Notes:

• Information Content Entities are a special case, to own one it is not necessary to own an information bearing Entity with the ICE embedded to it. But the fact of possessing a IBE bearing the ICE could be considered as possessing the latter depending on the context and local copyright laws.
• I'm not implementing the role model mentioned above but I hope these relations are compatible with it.

[Finn1928]

Hi! Sorry for the delayed response:

-material basis of wouldn't work, since that relates to a disposition rather than to a role. I'm not sure of a good path from the asset/asset role to the owner/owner role that doesn't go through information. OMERSE imports an 'is owned by' relation from OBIB: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols4/ontologies/omrse/properties/http%253A%252F%252Fpurl.obolibrary.org%252Fobo%252FOBIB_0000735?lang=en OMRSE has other relations you may find relevant.

-Regarding non-physical property, I think we might want to allow for immaterial entities being assets. Someone could own a site, not just the material in the site. I haven't thought of a good example of a specifically dependent continuant being an asset, though. You can own an object with a disposition, and you could own information prescribing the entity, but it's unclear you could own a disposition as an asset. So, limiting it to just GDCs and independent continuants might be reasonable. I'm open to counter-examples where someone owns an SDC, though.