Re: SUO: Re: nature of organisation
There is a solid body of natural language semantic analysis along these
lines, i.e., collectivity, distributivity, cumulativity, which may
assist here, on plurals, groups, atomic singular and plural individuals.
Fred Landman. 1996. Plurality. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic
Theory. Shalom Lappin, ed. Blackwell, pp. 425-458, and references
therein.
Also:
F. Landman. 1989. Groups I, II, Linguistics & Philosophy, 1989.
Manfred Krifka. 1990 Four Thousand Ships Passed Through the Lock:
Object-Induced Measure Functions on Events, Linguistics & Philosophy,
1990.
Godehard Link. 1983. The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A
Lattice-Theoretical Approach. In R. Bauerle et al, eds., Meaning, Use,
and Interpretation, Berlin: de Gruyer, pp. 302-23.
Patrick Cassidy wrote:
>
> Adam --
> Four related points here in response to your note:
> (1) Can an organization have no members?
> (2) CYC #$Group vs. SUMO &%Collection,
> (3) Set vs. Class -- what is a Class?
> (4) Axioms relating to Organization
>
> (1) You believe that an organization cannot exist without members:
> > 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.
> As I understand corporation law, a legal corporation is a Legal
> Person
> that does indeed exist as an entity on its own, related to its members,
> but not depending on them for its existence (I'm not well-versed in
> Law, someone who is should have the definitive opinion -- I
> thought that dissociating the identity of a Corporation from its
> members was one of the points of incorporation, which creates
> a new legal person). The point I made is that the last member
> of a corporation may die or leave, and the Organization as
> a legal Person can still have assets and debts -- it still exists.
> If that happens, a court may appoint an executor to liquidate
> the assets, pay the debts, dissolve the corporation, and figure
> out who gets any leftovers. This is probably a rare condition, but
> it illustrates that Corporations, at least, may exist without members.
> Probably most organizations we deal with do exist only while the
> members exists, but I can think of other scenarios when an
> organization may temporarily have no members.
> Not quite on point, but related, is an incident when one
> church group decided to merge with another, and arranged for
> all it members to resign and then join the other church and
> transfer their remaining property to the other church.
> However, some members decided not to resign, and
> after the majority did, the residuals claimed the assets as
> belonging to them as the remaining members of the
> original corporation -- and the court agreed. The
> mistake was not to transfer the assets *before* resigning.
> One can imagine a similar situation when they *did* all
> resign -- the original corporation would exist without
> any members, and it would be even more of a legal mess.
> Even without the law, it seems reasonable to distinguish
> an Organization as a group of people bound by some set of rules,
> in which case it is *more* than just a group of people. If there
> are no organizational rules (at least tacit or informal) ,
> I think it would then be just a group of
> people and not an Organization.
>
> ==========================================
> (2)
> My interpretation of the meaning of the CYC #$Group is
> not based on the name, but on the documentation, to wit:
> --------------
> (from the Public CYC)
> ;;; #$Group
> (#$isa #$Group #$ObjectType)
> (#$genls #$Group #$TemporalThing)
> (#$genls #$Group #$Individual)
> (#$genls #$Group #$Situation)
> (#$comment #$Group "A collection of objects. Each element of #$Group is
> a composite object, made up of individual members which may be either
> events or objects. A group is related to its members by the predicate
> #$groupMembers (q.v.). Note that elements of #$Group are NOT
> collections; consider: a group has temporal extent and may have spatial
> extent and location, while a collection is timeless and abstract.
> Nonetheless, it is possible to define a collection parallel to any
> group, so that the #$groupMembers of that group are also instances
> (#$isa's) of the correlated collection; e.g., each toe on my left foot
> is both an element of the collection of my left toes and a member of the
> group of toes on my left foot. But that group (of my left toes) is a
> spatiotemporal thing, while the correlated collection (of my left toes)
> is NOT. Another example: if I consider a certain flock of pigeons as
> having a location, a spatial extent, and a time of existence, then I am
> considering (the pigeon flock) a group and NOT a collection. As a
> default, a group whose #$groupMembers are elements of
> #$SomethingExisting is itself an element of #$SomethingExisting; and a
> group whose #$groupMembers are elements of #$Event is itself an element
> of #$Event. Finally, unlike a collection, a group cannot be empty; a
> group must have some #$groupMembers, or there is no group (at that point
> in time). Examples of #$Group: #$QueensGuard, #$ThreeWiseMen,
> #$SantasReindeer, #$InternationalCommunity.")
> --------------------
>
> Of course, without the axioms and examples of useage we can't
> know for sure the details of what a reasoning process may do
> with such a concept. I presume that the individuals writing that
> documentation and the subsumption of #$Organization under #$Group
> never considered the possibility of an #$Organization
> persisting without members.
> One of the objectives, I would hope, for the
> SUO effort is to look critically at what has been
> done before and try to avoid what appear to be
> mistakes. The CYC usage appears to me to be a mistake,
> and the present SUMO usage looks similar.
>
> In SUMO 1.17, the definition of &%Collection
> appears to have a similar intention to the CYC
> #$Group, though the documentation in SUMO isn't as
> detailed, and the axioms are insufficient to
> make a distinction. A &%Group is a subclass of
> &%Collection, so it should have similar properties.
>
> Sumo definitions:
> ----------------
> Group:
> (subclass Group Collection)
> (subclass Group Agent)
> (documentation Group "A &%Collection of &%Animals or &%Humans, e.g. a
> flock of sheep, a herd of goats, or the local Boy Scout troop.")
>
> (=>
> (and
> (instance ?GROUP Group)
> (member ?MEMB ?GROUP))
> (instance ?MEMB Animal))
>
> (subclass GroupOfPeople Group)
> (documentation GroupOfPeople "A &%Group consisting exclusively of
> &%Humans.")
>
> (=>
> (and
> (instance ?GROUP GroupOfPeople)
> (member ?MEMB ?GROUP))
> (instance ?MEMB Human))
>
> ----------------
> Collection:
> (subclass Collection Object)
> (documentation Collection "Collections have &%members like &%Classes,
> but,
> unlike &%Classes, they have a position in space-time and &%members can
> be
> added and subtracted without thereby changing the identity of the
> &%Collection. Some examples are toolkits, football teams, and flocks
> of sheep.")
>
> (=>
> (instance ?COLL Collection)
> (exists (?OBJ)
> (member ?OBJ ?COLL)))
>
> ==================================
> -----------------------------
> (3) Question:
> Set vs. Class
>
> A related question I have asked and do not yet know the answer
> to is why a "Set" in SUMO is a subclass of "Class" when in most
> theories the opposite is true. The definitions below
> say that a Set, "unlike &%Classes generally", does not
> have "an associated condition" (i.e. the standard interpretation
> of Class), but if Classes all had "an associated condition", then
> with the subclass relation in SUMO this would
> appear to violate the principle of inheritance of attributes;
> whereas, if the subclass/set order were reversed, the comment
> would be correct, but then Class would no longer be a
> generalization of Set.
> This would not be a contradiction if in fact Classes
> generally were not *required* to have an associated
> memership condition, but this would then differ from the usual
> interpretation of "Class" as it is used in ontologies
> (e.g. in the Ontolingua Frame Ontology, a Class is a subclass of
> Set; a Class is distinguished from a unary predicate only by
> a second-order predicate.) I can understand why one might
> want to define a "generalization" of Set so that it is
> not extensional, but I could not find defining axioms for
> "Set" or "Class" (except the extensionality axiom for &%Set),
> and from the definitions below I am not sure whether these
> two concepts actually serve their intended pupose.
>
> In the documentation, a distinction is drawn between
> Class and Collection that a collection can change
> members without changing the identity of the collection
> (a typical criterion for *intensional* definiton):
>
> "Collections have &%members like &%Classes, but,
> unlike &%Classes, they have a position in space-time and &%members can
> be
> added and subtracted without thereby changing the identity of the
> &%Collection."
>
> . . . but the documentation for &%Class specifically says that
> Classes are *not* defined extensionally, which is
> also what is implied for &%Collection by the documentation for
> &%Collection. Can you clarify this?
>
> Question: Is it *required* that a Class have an
> assocated membership condition (predicate)? If not, is there
> any concept that serves as an intensionally defined Set,
> like the "Class" of the Ontolingua Frame Ontology?
> If a &%Collection retains its idenity in spite of membership
> changes, does this not mean it is *necessarily* defined
> intensionally (by a defining predicate)?
> I think it's a good idea that the highest levels of the
> ontology should have the clearest and least
> ambiguous definitions.
>
> --------------------
> From SUMO 1.17
> (subclass Set Class)
> (documentation Set "A &%Class that satisfies extensionality as well as
> other conditions specified by some choice of set theory. Unlike
> &%Classes generally, &%Sets need not have an associated condition that
> determines their membership. Rather, they are thought of metaphorically
> as `built up' from some initial stock of objects by means of certain
> constructive operations (such as the pairing or power set operations).
> Note that extensionality alone is not sufficient for identifying
> &%Classes with &%Sets, since some &%Classes (e.g. &%Entity) cannot be
> assumed to be &%Sets without contradiction.")
>
> (subclass Class Abstract)
> (documentation Class "&%Class generalizes that &%Set. &%Classes, like
> &%Sets, are collections of things. Accordingly, the notion of
> membership
> is generalized as well - a member of a &%Class is an &%instance the
> &%Class. &%Classes can differ from &%Sets in two important respects.
> First, &%Classes that are not explicitly identified as &%Sets are not
> assumed
> to be extensional. That is, distinct &%Classes might well have exactly
> the
> same instances. Second, &%Classes typically have an associated
> `condition'
> that determines the instances of the &%Class. So, for example, the
> condition `human' determines the &%Class of &%Humans. Note that some
> &%Classes might satisfy their own condition (e.g., the &%Class of
> &%Abstract
> things is &%Abstract) and hence be instances of themselves.")
>
> ========================================
> (4). Axiomatization of Organization:
> (using SUMO terminology:
> This isn't carefully checked -- it may have errors, but this is
> the
> general idea)
>
> Relevant Hierarchy fragment:
> ------------------
> Agent
> Organization
> NormativeProposition
> Rule
> Set
> Membership
> RuleSet
> OrganizationRules
> Collection
> OrganizationMembers
> ------------------------
>
> ((1)) (subclass Organization Agent)
> ((2)) (subclass Rule NormativeProposition)
> (I can't easily axiomatize this because our discussions of
> Rules and Authorities
> and consequences of infringement never reached a
> conclusion)
> ((3)) "RuleSet is a Class each instance of which is a non-empty Set,
> all of whose elements are Rules"
>
> (subclass RuleSet Set)
> (forall ?RS
> (=>
> (instance ?RS RuleSet)
> (and
> (exists ?y
> (and
> (element ?y ?RS)
> (instance ?y Rule))
> (forall ?z
> (=>
> (element ?z ?RS)
> (instance ?z Rule)))
> )))
>
> ((4)) " Organizational Rules are a RuleSet"
> (subclass OrganizationRules RuleSet)
>
> " OrganizationRules and the Membership are proper parts of an
> organization:"
>
> (subclass Membership Set)
> (properPart OrganizationRules Organization)
> (properPart Membership Organization)
>
> " All elements of Membership are Agents"
> (as does CYC, we leave open the possiblity that a "member" of an
> Organization
> may be another organization (e.g. as with the UN, or a
> Chamber of Commerce))
>
> (forall (?MBSHP)
> (=>
> (instance ?MBSHP Membership)
> (forall ?MEMBR
> (=>
> (element ?MEMBR ?MBSHP)
> (instance ?MEMBR Agent) ))
> ))
>
> To allow empty sets of organization members, it
> is possible to define a set all of whose members (if
> they exist) are also members of an associated
> "OrganizationMembers" (this is one way to allow
> null membership -- another way is to allow a Collection
> to have null membership)
>
> ((5))" The group of OrganizationMembers is a Collection (because it
> may include other groups, not only individual people)"
> (subclass OrganizationMembers Collection)
>
> ((6)) "The Membership of an organization is a
> (possibly empty) set, all elements of
> which are also members of some instance of
> OrganizationMembers; for
> every non-null Set in Membership there is an associated
> Collection in OrganizationMembers"
>
> (subclass Membership Set)
> (forall (?MEMB ?MSHP)
> (=>
> (and
> (instance ?MSHP Membership)
> (element ?MEMB ?MSHP))
> (exists (?OM ?ORG )
> (and
> (instance ?ORG Organization)
> (instance ?OM OrganizationMembers)
> (properPart ?MSHP ?ORG)
> (member ?MEMB ?OM)))
> ))
>
> ------------------
>
> Pat Cassidy
>
> ======================
> Adam Pease wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > >
> > >===========================================
> > >
> >
> > Adam Pease
> > Teknowledge
> > (650) 424-0500 x571
>
> --
> =============================================
> 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
> =============================================
--
_____________________________________________
Dr. Leo Obrst The MITRE Corporation
mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information Management/Exploitation
Voice: 703-883-6770 7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
Fax: 703-883-1379 McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA