RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
Matthew,
This is a problem I an currently looking at.
The nature of Western Company law specifically makes a subsidiary a separate
'body' for which the holding company is not responsible. The standard case
is Kleinwort Benson and Malaysian Mining (I recall, I do not have the
reference book to hand). When subsidiaries go bust, the parent does not
inherit the liabilities.
So each of the Shells is a separate legal entity. However I think there is a
corporate Shell which encompasses them all - and of which they are all
parts. I suppose it this Shell which the CEO is talking about when he says
things like you all belong to the same company. However, this entity is not
legally recognized (though it is socially recognized by its employees and
customers).
This currently seems to me to be a satisfactory way of resolving the various
demands from mereology and ownership.
Regards,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com [mailto:Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com]
Sent: 29 August 2001 16:40
To: 'Adam Pease'; '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
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
>