RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
Pat, Matthew,
This is a problematic area and it depends to some extent on how you seen
ownership and membership - both difficult concepts.
My intuition is that Pat is correct. A useful test case for me is whether we
are responsible for the assets we own. In the case of limited companies this
is specifically excluded, in a way that could not be done for parts.
Similarly we can split ownership (shares) but not parts (except in an exotic
mereology).
I would like to see this analysed properly so that 1) it covers how
ownership is actually used, especially commercially and 2) we have a clearer
understanding.
Regards
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: pcassidy@bellatlantic.net [mailto:pcassidy@bellatlantic.net]
Sent: 29 August 2001 13:35
To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
Cc: Adam Pease; 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,
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.
Pat Cassidy
============================
"West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK" wrote:
>
> Dear Adam,
>
> I think the mistake in organisation is thinking that it consists
> only of people. If that were so it would not be possible to sell
> a company - Slavery is illegal in most places. On the other hand
> when a company is sold, its assets pass to the new owner. This
> suggests to me rather strongly that the assets of a company (at
> least) are part of the company.
>
> 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: 27 August 2001 17:28
> > To: mail@ChrisPartridge.net; Patrick Cassidy
> > Cc: iniles@teknowledge.com; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: 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
> >
--
=============================================
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
=============================================