RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
Matthew,
Do you intend this to be a counter-example? This seems straightforward:
(owns Shell ShellSubsidiaryX). If this is an example of a corporation with
no employees that is just a legal entity which owns other organizations
then it seems to me a case of the LegalOrganization notion that I suggested
in my message of 8/27 to Chris, which I've copied below. Maybe we're in
agreement?
Adam
At 04:40 PM 8/29/2001 +0200, West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK wrote:
>Dear Adam,
>
>Let us take the case of Shell. Shell is a large complex of companies
>(some 200+ I believe) where there are several levels of ownership.
>It is through that ownership that these companies are part of the
>Shell Group.
>
>Or would you saythat Shell is not an organisation?
>
>
>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
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Pease [mailto:apease@ks.teknowledge.com]
> > Sent: 29 August 2001 14:24
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; 'cassidy@micra.com'
> > Cc: mail@ChrisPartridge.net; iniles@teknowledge.com;
> > standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: 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
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571
>Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:28:14 -0700
>To: mail@ChrisPartridge.net, Patrick Cassidy <pcassidy@bellatlantic.net>
>From: Adam Pease <apease@ks.teknowledge.com>
>Subject: RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
>Cc: iniles@teknowledge.com, standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>
>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
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571