RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
Matthew,
I'm not a lawyer, but I think Pat may be right even in a strictly legal
sense. Your earlier comment that it "is a mistake to think that an
organization consists only of people" is accurate I think on the legal
notion of organization but is a different issue. (owns CorporationX
AssetY) but (member CorporationX PersonZ)
Adam
At 02:26 PM 8/29/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
>Dear Pat,
>
> > Matthew,
> > To be consistent with the nature of "ownership",
> > I think it is better to treat assets, whether of people or
> > companies, a *owned* by them, rather than a part.
> > This is a much-used relationship, and I would
> > worry that changing it would make conversion from other
> > ontologies difficult.
>
>MW: It would be nice if reality conformed to our desire for a
>simplified view of things. However, I'm afraid I don't know
>how to make it happen.
>
>Matthew West
>Principal Consultant
>Shell Information Technology International Limited
>Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
>Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
>Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
>Internet: http://www.shell.com
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571