Re: SUO: Re: nature of organisation
Leo,
These look like good references. I've enjoyed reading some of Krifka's
papers in the past. Are any of these on line?
Adam
At 03:33 PM 8/25/2001 -0400, Leo Obrst wrote:
>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571