{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/resource/issues/23","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/resource","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/resource/issues/23/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/resource/issues/23/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/resource/issues/23/events","html_url":"https://github.com/valueflows/resource/issues/23","id":155551773,"number":23,"title":"Defining vf:EconomicResource","user":{"login":"bhaugen","id":117439,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/117439?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen","html_url":"https://github.com/bhaugen","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/resource/labels/discussion","name":"discussion","color":"b60205"}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":4,"created_at":"2016-05-18T16:54:46Z","updated_at":"2016-05-18T23:45:19Z","closed_at":null,"body":"First, I think we should use the name EconomicResource since the undifferentiated name Resource is associated so strongly with Resource in Resource Description Framework (RDF).\r\n\r\nSecond, I want to try out using rea:Name as the namespace (even if that namespace does not exist yet) for REA concepts that we are basing a vf:Name on, at least partly, and also at the same time to explain how we are varying from the REA definition, because in many cases we need to do so. \r\n\r\nI'll get my REA definitions from [The REA Accounting Model](https://msu.edu/user/mccarth4/McCarthy.pdf), [The Ontological Foundation of REA Enterprise Information Systems](https://msu.edu/user/mccarth4/Alabama.doc) or the [ISO Accounting and economic ontology](https://msu.edu/user/mccarth4/15944-4.doc), which was also based on REA but modified by a committee of e-commerce experts from around the world. ISO has pretty clear definitions.\r\n\r\nrea:Economic Resource: \r\n![image](https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/117439/15366697/2b3678f4-1ceb-11e6-9430-26da2313fc87.png)\r\n\r\niso:Economic Resource \r\n> An Economic Resource is a scarce good, right, or service that possesses utility (economic value) and that is presently under the identifiable control of a particular Person\r\n\r\niso:Person\r\n> A Person is a natural or legal person or organizational unit empowered to control the flow of economic resources (including his or her own labor) by engaging in economic events.  \r\n\r\nWe can't use those definitions as-is, because Economic Resources that have utility for economic networks are often not scarce. (That part of the REA and ISO definitions is just out of date.) And if we want to include whole ecosystems in our analysis, they may not be under the identifiable control of any person or enterprise.\r\n\r\nFor discussion, I would start with:\r\nvf:EconomicResource is a tangible or intangible good or service that possesses utility (economic value) to an EconomicAgent.\r\n\r\n(I want to leave rights out of it for now, because I don't think everybody here agrees on rights as an EconomicResource, and we have been exploring an alternative model that focuses more on responsibilities and coordination and does not require the concept of ownership.)\r\n\r\nAnother aspect of the definition is the identification of a vf:EconomicResource (https://github.com/valueflows/resource/issues/13).\r\n\r\n@elf-pavlik proposed two means of identification:\r\n1) direct - IRI\r\n2) indirect - clearly defined part of a stock which does have IRI\r\n\r\nI have proposed three different types of resources from the viewpoint of identification:\r\na) serialized resources, where each individual instance has a unique identifier,\r\nb) lot-controlled resources, where each lot or batch has a unique identifier, but the lot or batch may contain many individual instances, and\r\nc) count or volume or stock resources, where individual instances are indistinguishable, or in the case of fluids, only exist on a molecular level.\r\n\r\nSerialized resources would fit the direct identification pattern. Lots can be split up, so the identification of a subset of a lot would require some other properties, such as location. Stock resources can only be described indirectly, by means of some combination of properties, such as vf:ResourceType and location. (Location is a complex ontology of its own: for example, in warehousing, a location is often composed of warehouse:room:aisle:row:tier.)\r\n\r\nMoreover, identification of resources will depend on context and purpose. I think we need to allow each context to define resources that they have relationships with, according to the combination of properties that works best for them, which might include which agent has which relationship with a resource. \r\n\r\nAnd then in the \"independent view\", for larger-scale analysis of resource flows, or for example for lot tracking for public health issues like mad cow disease, different combinations of properties might be needed.\r\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/resource/issues/comments/220190454","html_url":"https://github.com/valueflows/resource/issues/23#issuecomment-220190454","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/valueflows/resource/issues/23","id":220190454,"user":{"login":"bhaugen","id":117439,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/117439?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen","html_url":"https://github.com/bhaugen","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bhaugen/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-05-18T23:45:19Z","updated_at":"2016-05-18T23:45:19Z","body":"So far, I think that EconomicResource is the only one we need to qualify, unless we use Event. In that case, we also need to qualify EconomicEvent, But I think we need to do that. And it is different from other versions of Resource (or Event). I think you are wrong that it will not be confusing if we do not qualify it. I have run into this in a lot of settings, and both are always confusing if not qualified, and sometimes confusing even if qualified, because people enjoy being confused."}}