Transfer vs. Exchange & tracking vs. accounting

[elf-pavlik]

conversation from gitter

elf-pavlik 17:30 @bhaugen would you see conversations about Commitment fitting exchange repo? bhaugen 18:49 @elf-pavlik - yes. Conversations for action is all about making commitments, fulfilling them, and then evaluating the results. Might not be clear yet in the README CfA does not need to be about exchanges, though. Could also be about planning a process to create something. Or having a party. elf-pavlik 18:55 If someone works on something (this work goes as input in the process), do you consider it and exchange? working on something sounds like a Service to me, eg. fixing 3 open bugs which took me 3 hours bhaugen 19:01 That's a good question. We're about to each lunch, and I will discuss with Lynn how to answer it without being confusing. And then I will answer it, but might want to write something at more length, with some diagrams. elf-pavlik 19:02 bon appétit for tangible items, i guess whatever happens within a single 'Inventory' doesn't involve an Exchange step, single 'Inventory' in sense of 'owned' by same agent... @elf-pavlik created place for discussion about Inventory (and sub inventories) in valueflows/resource#1 bhaugen 19:26 @elf-pavlik - are you sure this conversation belongs in inventory rather than exchange? elf-pavlik 19:28 where does resources belong to? right, you can link each resource directly to agent and skip inventory all together bhaugen 19:28 resources could be inventoried or not if you inventory work, it is on a calendar. if you inventory tires, it is in a warehouse elf-pavlik 19:29 i assume that if resource doesn't change an owner than no exchange happens? bhaugen 19:29 work is different from other things yes, if a resource doesnt change an owner, then no exchange but that gets tricky, when people buy and sell rights work creates things so back to your question, yes there are exchanges around work, but then there are sub-questions about timing, and what is actually being exchanged elf-pavlik 19:31 and no one own's agents or work their do, so each work which one may want to account for comes with an exchange... bhaugen 19:31 so for example if you are a salaried worker, you exchange your labor time per week the work you do in a process is not subject to another exchange In general, people pay for labor time, but then active work happens during that time, and is different from the labor time say I am a skilled potter. I turn bowls out of clay. elf-pavlik 19:34 If I perform work which contributes to a resource which I don't own - this causes an exchange (at least one way of looking at it) bhaugen 19:34 my hands and arms and legs and their accumulated muscle memory and my mental skills are all employed in turning the bowl. all of those accumulated skills are what someone pays for if they pay me to turn a bowl. If they just buy a bowl that I made, then all of those skills and that labor are incorporated in the bowl. So there is no separate exchange for the labor. elf-pavlik 19:37 So you worked on a bowl which you own - so far fits my statement above - no exchange so far bhaugen 19:36 In sensorica, when I contribute work to a process, and the ultimate results of the chain of processes brings in some income, then the value equation floats some of that back to me, and the exchange for my labor time happens then. elf-pavlik 19:38 can we keep those two flows distinct (while still can reference each other when desired) ? bhaugen 19:38 so there's the labor time, the actions of physical and mental work, and the results (what was created) which two flows do you mean? elf-pavlik 19:39 1) i contribute some work toward a resource which i don't own myself e.g. collectively own resource (one way exchange) 2) i receive 3 months later a rideshare from someone who knew about work i have done and wanted to express gratitude, even though i didn't expect anything from that person (second one way exchange) we can optionally link those two exchanges to each other but don't have to since they stay a distinct information entities bhaugen 19:41 I got no problem with either of those if you contribute some work to a resource which is collectively owned and collectively used and does not enter into commerce, then you are operating in a different economic system. which is a good place to be. let's take the bowl. the work, the physical and mental labor, the use of embodied skills, is the same in any of the situations I will list: the potter makes and sells the bowl the potter works for a company that pays by the hour and the company sells the bowl the potter works for a communical kitchen where the bowl is used to knead bread dough but the relationships among the agents are different in each of those situations and the details of the exchanges are different. i elf-pavlik 19:45 what do you think about making accounting orthogonal to modeling of real world events involved in all hose scenarios above bhaugen 19:45 In the last situation, the communal kitchen, you could say that the potter gets bread, or a community to live in, but it's a little churlish to even mention exchange accounting is orthogonal that's the difference between the forces of production and the relations of production we are, however, embedded in a system of commodity exchange, and will need to work our way out of it and not all at one time, unfortunatel y so the potter and the communal kitchen is a lot like your collectively owned resource and rideshare some months later they are all happening in a different economic system different relations elf-pavlik 19:51 can we try to clarify when exchange happens and when not? bhaugen 19:51 I would start by example. elf-pavlik 19:51 in terms of 'agent owns a resource' 'agent contributes work to a resource' bhaugen 19:51 in both cases, what happens to the resource? agent owns a resource and uses it agent owns a resource and sells it only exchange in the second case agent contributes work to a resource: elf-pavlik 19:53 agent donates a resource agent borrows/lends a resource bhaugen 19:53 agent donates a resource: a tricky case @elf-pavlik back in 15min bhaugen 19:53 agent borrows or lends a resource: could be barter, could be mutual credit elf-pavlik 20:00 if agent sells resource differs from agent donates resource it sounds like we don't have accounting orthogonal here bhaugen 20:01 Agent donates resource: could be for the good of the community, could be for a tax break, could be for reputation points. elf-pavlik 20:01 for me in both sell and donate ownership changes (permanently) bhaugen 20:01 but I don't understand "we don't have accounting orthogonal here" elf-pavlik 20:02 what else makes 'agent sells resource' different from 'agent donates resource' ? bhaugen 20:02 agent sells resource and gets something in return (that is, an exchange). agent donates resource: the ownership changes, but might or might not be an exchange. elf-pavlik 20:03 (two way exchange || two one way exchanges which depend on each other - conditional) donate (one way exchange - unconditional) bhaugen 20:03 I don't think one-way is an exchange. but it depends on your definition. If a change of ownership is an exchange, then it is. elf-pavlik 20:04 I would like to try syncing them and documenting better bhaugen 20:04 I think of exchange as a trade, that is, two-way. fosterlynn 20:05 you don't need an exchange to change ownership, a transfer event can do that, for one resource elf-pavlik 20:05 How do you model flows which use gifts? We don't even need one way exchanges fosterlynn 20:05 (although I do create an exchange in NRP for one way transfers, possibly incorrectly) bhaugen 20:05 I would reserve the word exchange for a trade, two-way elf-pavlik 20:06 doesn't it introduce accounting ? bhaugen 20:06 two-way introduces accounting elf-pavlik 20:06 making transfers conditional bhaugen 20:06 yes, if I understand what you mean but then it also depends on what you mean by accounting. elf-pavlik 20:07 ok, so on a level without accounting we deal with Transfer fosterlynn 20:06 one way introduces accounting in that a resource was added to inventory (in the case of a donation of something), true? bhaugen 20:07 the guy that does energy accounting for ecosystems also calls it accounting elf-pavlik 20:07 good point! bhaugen 20:07 the base is counting but from a business accounting viewpoint, if it's not an economic event (a significant change in a resource that they own), it's not accounting. and then if they gave something up, they need to know, what did they get for that in return? elf-pavlik 20:10 do you have any experience with chain barter? eg. http://edgeryders.eu/en/makerfox/open-sourcing-network-barter bhaugen 20:09 if they haven't gotten it yet, they got it coming I understand the concept, but have no experience we're learning about mutual credit systems, which are a more flexible version of the same thing elf-pavlik 20:10 can we find distinction between tracking and accounting ? bhaugen 20:10 by example: a steer was butchered the cuts of meat went to many places elf-pavlik 20:11 i same agent owns two 'inventories' and resources move between them - do we go into accounting or just tracking bhaugen 20:11 some of them went into sausage @elf-pavlik ouch! gets bloody here bhaugen 20:11 later on somebody gets sick they need to track the sausage back to the source animals not the same as accounting, but uses some of the same information just much more detailed elf-pavlik 20:12 you used word track bhaugen 20:12 actually, i think that is tracing but i get confused myself i think tracing goes back to the source tracking goes forward to the destinations elf-pavlik 20:14 if we consider planet earth an agent and follow "Earth doesn't belong to us, we belong to Earth" - do we just do tracking or go into accounting bhaugen 20:13 moving resources between locations does not show up in accounting, but it does show up in counting and tracking I think accounting assumes systems of exchange elf-pavlik 20:15 makes sense to me bhaugen 20:14 but the guy that does ecosystem accounting thinks exchanges of energy elf-pavlik 20:15 but I would like to keep tracking and accounting orthogonal if possible bhaugen 20:15 what does that mean to you? elf-pavlik 20:16 that we can agree on how we keep track on things, but can disagree on how we account for them bhaugen 20:15 sure unless we are doing energy accounting then we need to be more strict example of disagreeing on how we account for something? elf-pavlik 20:17 energy in a sense of electricity in a grid eg. http://geni.org/ bhaugen 20:17 is geni an example of energy accounting or disagreeing on how we account for something? elf-pavlik 20:18 i see possibility of tracking electricity (using meters) but still keeping accounting separate from that @bhaugen moving resources between locations does not show up in accounting, but it does show up in counting and tracking I think accounting assumes systems of exchange bhaugen 20:18 the energy accounting in an ecosystem people are tracking the flows of resources in a living ecosystem, not accounting for money, or electricity in a grid but yes, tracking electricity could be done (and is done) separately from accounting. balancing the grid, for example elf-pavlik 20:20 can we try to document nuances of Exchange vs. Transfer and accounting vs. tracking? bhaugen 20:20 http://www.cep.ees.ufl.edu/emergy/about/research_agenda.shtml elf-pavlik 20:21 in a sense of how we define them and distinguish them in context of vf: work bhaugen 20:21 we should do that, but it's a deep topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergy are we getting anywhere in this conversation? elf-pavlik 20:22 if I just work with Transfer and tracking I don't need anything from https://github.com/openvocab/exchange ? bhaugen 20:22 might not depends on what you are trying to do Lynn says we should get back to work on agent... elf-pavlik 20:23 where we work on Transfer and tracking than? process repo? fosterlynn 20:23 i think the exchange repo should probably include transfer events that are not part of an exchange..... or we could start an event repo? bhaugen 20:23 I don't think process is the place

[bhaugen]

@ahdinosaur @almereyda did you get anything out of that (above)?

[ahdinosaur]

i got that we should document any and all use cases (e.g. relationships with agents and resources) as markdown files in a use-cases/ directory in the repo of the domain we think is most related. i reckon if we lay everything out, we'll have a clearer picture of the minimal vocab that can support what we need, especially because i want us to avoid what other vocabs do in creating new terms for new use cases.

[almereyda]

We have moved the ValueFlows organization from GitHub to https://lab.allmende.io/valueflows.

This issue has been closed here, and all further discussion on this issue can be done at

https://lab.allmende.io/valueflows/exchange/-/issues/8.

If you have not done so, you are very welcome to register at https://lab.allmende.io and join the ValueFlows organization there.