RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
Dear Adam,
No, I am giving an example where one organisation is part of another
by ownership.
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 15:49
> 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,
> 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
>