RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
Chris,
This is a good issue. I appreciate your input. What I'm advocating
here is possibly that there are two distinct notions. One is a common
sense notion of an organization - companies have people and a legal shell
with no people would be an unusual case. The other is a legal notion that
allows legal entities without people to populate them (at least for defined
periods). I agree with your legal examples but don't see that it
necessarily overrides the common sense one. But we do need both notions, I
agree. Ian and I just talked about this and will try to come up with a
proposed revision that might accommodate both notions. I'd also welcome
any proposal from you on how we might revise the class hierarchy and axioms
to support this.
Adam
At 10:14 AM 8/27/2001 +0200, Chris Partridge wrote:
>Adam,
>
>I suspect Pat is closer to the actual way people use organization (certainly
>in commercial practice) than you. In other words, trying to get to the
>essentiality of organization through people does not seem a fruitful tack.
>
>Why is an organization not an organization without people?
>The legal definition is as a legal person - one that is legally regarded as
>able to have rights and responsibilities. There is no mention of human
>people here.
>
>In this scheme there are trusts that do not have to have people belonging to
>them at all times. If that were so, then if all the officers of a trust were
>to accidentally die - the trust would cease to exist (as Pat has pointed out
>below).
>
>Also, on a similar topic on the EPISTLE email list someone from Holland
>point out that it is perfectly legal to set up a company without naming any
>of the directors etc.
>
>You seem to be talking about the people belonging to an organization -
>these, obviously, have to be people - but an organization does not have to
>have a non-empty group of them to exist.
>
>Also this tack of trying to identify the organization with the people has to
>deal with different organizations with the same people (CYC's group approach
>has to deal with this as well). And how to recognize that organizations are
>agents separate from the people (currently) belonging to the organization.
>
>Things get even trickier when you start trying to explain belong and
>distinguish between owners, employees, contractors and agents (mercantile
>agents). Are they all in a belong relationship - and if not why not?
>
>Regards
>Chris
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Adam
>Pease
>Sent: 24 August 2001 21:33
>To: Patrick Cassidy; Chris Partridge
>Cc: iniles@teknowledge.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>Subject: 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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571