Re: SUO: Organization
Chris --
Just a clarification: I excluded a mob (unorganized)
from an "Organization" (with a set of rules). My suggestion
was that *any* living organism or group of living organisms
should be an Agent, but some rules of organization are necesary
to make an "Organization" (which is also an Agent).
In this representation, a pack of dogs or Wolves
would still be a mob, unless they could be thought of as
recognizing a leader, in which case they might
be a borderline case of Organization. But I would
prefer to have Organizations be restricted to
those formed by people or other organizations.
Pat Cassidy
===============
Chris Partridge wrote:
>
> Ian (Pat)
>
> You wrote:
> >
> > Thus, I think, every Group should still be an Agent,
> > though the GroupAgentFn could still be useful to
> > generate Agents from other collections, which
> > might not necessarily be Agents. (this assumes
> > that non-living things can be Agents. We discussed
> > before such a general type of Agent.)
>
> I'm inclined to agree with you. I tried to think of an example of a 'Group'
> which would not be capable of agency, but I can't imagine one. Even a
> random group of animals at the local pound might act with agency, e.g. if
> all of them lunged at a keeper who had been mistreating them.
>
> I understand that TOVE used the notion of Group in their ontology to deal
> with things like - all senior managers working in Sales Departments. Here
> the group will typically have no collective intentionality and so - it seems
> to me - unlikely to qualify as an agent. I think we need to be clear about
> what we mean as a group - as I recall Pat specifically excluded mobs from
> groups, to try and deal with this. If this is so then I think group at some
> levels corresponds well enough with organization. I suppose it all depends
> on what you call a mob. It seems to me that Ian's keeper lunging group is
> merely accidentally acting together and so a mob not a group.
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Ian
> Niles
> Sent: 28 August 2001 01:37
> To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: SUO: Organization
>
> Pat,
>
> Thanks for helping to clarify things. See my comments below.
>
> -Ian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Cassidy [mailto:pcassidy@bellatlantic.net]
> > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 4:20 PM
> > To: Ian Niles
> > Cc: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: SUO: Organization
> >
> >
> > Ian --
> > Your proposed changes seem to answer some of the
> > questions raise, but there is one clarification of the
> > meaning of "Agent" that I think is needed. I think
> > there is an important distinction that needs to be
> > made between physical entities that *can* show
> > agency, the *predicate* of agency, and the designation
> > of a specific agent as the agent of a specific action.
> >
> > The CYC #$Agent starts with the statement that an
> > #$Agent is something that *can* show independent action;
> > but the Docs then exclude plants.
> >
> > In SUMO there is a class "Agent" and a predicate
> > "agent" which relates the role to the class. The
> > question is how to interpret the class "Agent".
> > The documentations says, like the CYC:
> > "An agent is something or someone that can
> > act on its own and produce changes in the world"
> >
> > And the axiom indicates that there has to be some
> > action that an agent is agent of:
> >
> > (<=>
> > (instance-of ?X Agent)
> > (exists (?Y)
> > (agent ?Y ?X)))
> >
> > This still leaves open the interpretation
> > (which I prefer) that an Agent does not have
> > to be an agent *at every point in time*,
> > merely to *have been* in the role of agent at some
> > time, with a potential to be so again. I think
> > that is consistent with the axiom above.
>
> I agree. I think things would become needlessly complex if we had to
> relativize the notion of agency to a particular time frame, and the only
> alternative to this, as I see it, is to make agency equivalent to capability
> of agency.
>
> >
> > If this interpretation is what is intended, then
> > every life form should be an agent, and every
> > group of living things should also be an agent,
> > because they are capable of agency -- though they
> > may not exhibit obvious agency at every point
> > in time. At the very least, they are agents of
> > the metabolism of nutrients, and of biochemical
> > processes; in fact, for every living thing
> > there is probably some biochemical process at
> > every point in time of which it is an agent.
>
> I agree with everything you say here, and I was not proposing that we remove
> the 'subclass' link between 'Organism' and 'Agent' in the SUMO.
>
> >
> > Thus, I think, every Group should still be an Agent,
> > though the GroupAgentFn could still be useful to
> > generate Agents from other collections, which
> > might not necessarily be Agents. (this assumes
> > that non-living things can be Agents. We discussed
> > before such a general type of Agent.)
>
> I'm inclined to agree with you. I tried to think of an example of a 'Group'
> which would not be capable of agency, but I can't imagine one. Even a
> random group of animals at the local pound might act with agency, e.g. if
> all of them lunged at a keeper who had been mistreating them.
>
> I'll add back in the 'subclass' link between 'Agent' and 'Group', unless
> someone can think of a good reason not to do this. I'll also think about
> how to refine the proposed 'GroupAgentFn' so that it does exactly what we
> want it to do, viz. generating an agent in cases where an agent seems to be
> lacking.
>
> Thanks again for your comments.
>
> >
> > On the question of the relations of an Organization
> > to its members, I am trying to put together a short
> > comment relevant to that, in response to Chris
> > Partridge's note.
> >
> > Pat Cassidy
> >
> > ===============================
> >
> >
> > Ian Niles wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I wanted to summarize the various criteria that people have
> > proposed for any
> > > adequate formalization of the concept of organization and
> > then sketch a
> > > formalization that satisfies these criteria.
> > >
> > > Here, then, are the various criteria that an
> > organization satisfies.
> > >
> > > 1. An organization has agency, e.g. it exhibits
> > intentionality, and
> > > it has rights, responsibilities, and obligations.
> > >
> > > 2. An organization may have members, but it is not
> > required to have
> > > members. There are many examples of organizations, e.g.
> > corporations and
> > > churches, that have assets are liable for certain claims
> > etc, even though
> > > they have no members.
> > >
> > > 3. An organization has temporal extent. It comes
> > into being at a
> > > certain point in time, and it goes out of existence
> > at another
> > > point.
> > >
> > > 4. An organization can have various sorts of
> > members. Owners are
> > > members of organizations, and employees, directors,
> > and other
> > > stakeholders may also be members of organizations
> > (although perhaps in
> > > different senses). An organization may also have other
> > organizations as
> > > members.
> > >
> > > All of these criteria have been extracted from Pat
> > Cassidy's and Chris
> > > Partridge's emails on the subject. The current SUMO
> > formalization of
> > > 'Organization' as a subclass of 'Collection' satisfies
> > points 1 and 3,
> > > because 'Organization' is a subclass of 'Group' and 'Group'
> > is a subclass of
> > > 'Agent' (point 1) and because 'Organization' is indirectly
> > a subclass of
> > > 'Physical' (point 3). However, since 'Organization' is a
> > subclass of
> > > 'Collection', it is required to have members, so point 2 is
> > not satisfied
> > > completely. Furthermore, there is no provision for the
> > different sorts of
> > > members that may make up an 'Organization', so point 4 is
> > also apparently
> > > not satisfied.
> > >
> > > My new proposal is to cleanly separate the notions of
> > agency and group.
> > > Rather than make 'Organization' a subclass of 'Group', I
> > think we should
> > > make it a direct subclass of 'Agent', where it will be
> > understood as a class
> > > of legal entities with certain rights, responsibilities,
> > intentionality,
> > > etc. We should also, I think, remove the subclass link
> > between 'Group' and
> > > 'Agent', because there are groups of animals and humans
> > that do not exhibit
> > > agency of any sort, e.g. a group of cows grazing. We can
> > then use a new
> > > function, defined as follows, to relate 'Groups' to 'Agents'.
> > >
> > > (instance GroupAgentFn UnaryFunction)
> > > (domain GroupAgentFn 1 Group)
> > > (range GroupAgentFn Agent)
> > > (documentation GroupAgentFn "Assigns an instance of 'Agent'
> > to an instance
> > > of 'Group'. In some cases, the 'Agent' assigned will be
> > identical to the
> > > group, e.g. a flock of geese flying northward. In some
> > cases, the 'Agent'
> > > will be different from the 'Group', e.g. the
> > 'GroupOfPeople' making up an
> > > 'Organization' is distinct from the legal entity that is
> > the 'Agent'. Note
> > > that this is a partial function. There are many cases of
> > 'Groups' which do
> > > not exhibit agency.")
> > >
> > > I think this proposal addresses points 1, 2, and 3 above,
> > and I think it has
> > > the advantage of making the overall structure of the
> > ontology cleaner and
> > > clearer. It is important to note, however, that this
> > proposal does nothing
> > > in the way of answering point 4. We are still stuck with
> > the problem of
> > > defining various sorts of relations between organizations
> > and the different
> > > classes of members that make them up. However, this
> > problem seems to me to
> > > be separable from the problem of figuring out what an
> > "organization" is. In
> > > fact, as I see it, we can take it as the problem of
> > defining subrelations of
> > > 'member', since 'member' encompasses all of the relations
> > that we would ever
> > > want to define between an organization and a person who
> > belongs to the
> > > organization. The only exception to this, as I see it, is the
> > > 'subOrganizations' relation. In this case, the relation
> > could be redefined
> > > so that it is no longer a subrelation of 'subCollection'.
> > >
> > > I hope this proposal makes sense. Let me know if and where
> > you disagree
> > > with it.
> > >
> > > -Ian
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > =============================================
> > 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
> > =============================================
> >
--
=============================================
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
=============================================