Re: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
Pat,
We should be a little careful here because it sounds like you may be
reading a bit into the names of terms - especially for Cyc since the axioms
aren't public.
Another issue which is on my mind because of discussions with Chris
Welty is the essential property of an Organization. An Organization is not
an Organziation without people but may still be one without anything other
than it's members.
But, overall, I think you're bringing up excellent issues. Could you
recommend a change in the axioms to accommodate these issues?
Adam
At 02:40 PM 8/24/2001 -0400, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>Concerning organizations:
> In the SUMO and also in the CYC, Organization is a
>subclass of Group, which is some assemblage of
>entities -- distinguished from a Set, which is
>considered "timeless an abstract". This
>distinction can be useful, but since groups of
>physical objects can then be considered as physical
>objects, it seems inappropriate to classify an
>organization as a subclass of Group. The members
>of an Organization form part of the Organization,
>but not the whole part. The rules creating the
>organization and defining the relations of members
>to each other and to the group are an essential
>part of an organization -- that's why it is
>"organized". I would prefer to see an
>Organization defined as an agent that has
>a set of operating rules and a group of people
>as a *Part* of the organization. A lot
>of "organizations" have only one person as
>a member (e.g. sole proprietarship corporations
>with no employees other than the owner).
>Consider a legal organization -- it is possible
>for the sole member to die, but for the
>organization to continue as a legal entity,
>e.g. if it has property and debts
>(the heirs might have to clean up the mess).
>In CYC, a Group must have at least one member.
>This situation would create a contradiction,
>unless one were to specify that every owner is
>de facto a member, and even then there could be
>an ownerless corporation whose affairs are
>terminated by some appointeee of the courts.
> To clarify the distinction, we could consider
>a mob or a crowd as consisting solely of
>its members. A mob or a crowd, then, could be
>an Agent that *is* a subtype of Group. The useful
>(I think) distinction would be to consider an
>Organization as an Agent that has a Group as a part.
> The way to specify roles in an organization
>is a different issue.
>
> Pat Cassidy
>
>===========================================
>
>
>=============================================
>Patrick Cassidy
>
>MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
>735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer)
>Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 || (908) 668-5904 (fax)
>
>internet: cassidy@micra.com
>=============================================
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571