Transfer works with Currency (The Map) while Process with Resource (The Territory)
After many long chats with @fosterlynn and @bhaugen and looking at Processes, Transfers, Intents and Resources, Agents involved in all of them, I think I start seeing possibly elegant approach to how we can model it
Piggybacking on terms used in already mentioned https://github.com/valueflows/valueflows/pull/115#issuecomment-217550404 "The map is not the territory" we can distinguish.
The map
- Transfer
- Currency
- conceptual/logical/legal/agreement (perceptions)
The territory
- Process
- Resource
- physical/analogue (matter) or virtual/digital (data)
Currencies correspond in various ways to Resources, some examples:
Currency | Resource |
---|---|
100% ownership of particular device, model Fairphone2 (as discussed yesterday | the physical Fairphone2 device |
Ticket (vf:Claim) for a play in theatre | Inclusion in audience of that play |
Gift Card (vf:Claim) for a 1h shiatsu massage | The health care service - actual 1h shiatsu massage |
ownership/allocation for 20L of natural gas in a grid | 20L of gas used in daily Porridge preparation |
ownership/allocation for 2week usage of a flat | staying in that flat for 2 weeks |
agreement to use a particular car on one particular day | using that car on that day |
I will work on drawing such distinction for each of the use cases. I recall @bhaugen that he can consider rights to resources themselves as resources. I find calling them Currency a useful distinction which keeps clear separation between the map and the territory. We also discussed yesterday that one can vf:Transfer a vf:Claim which seems to support that approach.
The Treachery of Images "This is not a pipe"