RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
Matthew,
I like your comment about slavery.
I agree that there is a nice distinction to be made between ownership and
part involving assets of a company.
However in a more general framework it makes sense to give similar things a
similar treatment.
The problem I have been having with treating assets as part of a company is
we do not seem to do this for people. Your car is not part of you etc. Maybe
we should do this for people? Anyway, it would be pleasing to get a way of
looking at these that treated them consistently across the kinds of things
that can own things - or a good explanation 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 West,
Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
Sent: 29 August 2001 10:09
To: Adam Pease; 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
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
>