RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
Matthew,
Comments interspersed below with CP>
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com [mailto:Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com]
Sent: 31 August 2001 12:33
To: 'mail@ChrisPartridge.net'; Patrick Cassidy
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
Dear Chris,
See comments below.
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: Chris Partridge [mailto:chris_partridge@csi.com]
> Sent: 31 August 2001 10:38
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; mail@ChrisPartridge.net; Patrick
> Cassidy
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of
> organisation
>
>
> Matthew,
>
> I'd be interested to know what "the different ways things can
> be a "part""
> are.
MW: I think I have answered this for companies. A company would ordinarily
be considered a part of another company when its accounts are consolidated
into the other company. The consolidation of accounts implies that the
activities performed are seen as a whole.
CP> As I am sure you know, there are financial accounts and management
accounts. Do you mean just financial accounts? Shell is a good example (as
usual). Do the two holding companies produce consolidated accounts for their
partial holdings? So are the subsidiaries part of both of the holding
companies (I hope I have got Shell's corporate structure right) - this is an
example of shared ownership (financial parthood in your terms?), something
not usually seen with material parthhood. Also consolidated accounts may be
a good guide but are surely not the essence of parthood here.
>
> I suspect we use the term 'part' loosely here - and it needs a bit of
> regimentation.
MW: I've just finished reading Peter Simon's "Parts" and one of the things
that has struck me is how variable parthood can be.
>
> I would have thought that one is normally responsible for
> one's parts -
> particularly where one is involved in the actions they perform.
MW: My father is a part of the same family I am. Is the family legally
responsible for what he does? In the case of family, parthood seems to be
determined by kinship, not ownership, or legal responsibility. This is of
course not true for companies.
CP> This is interesting for me. I think under old Roman Law (and also modern
Islamic Law) the family is a unit of which the members are part - and the
paterfamilias is responsible for the family - which is responsible for all
its parts. So if you belonged to an Ancient Roman family the answer to your
question would be yes. The ties binding the modern British nuclear family
are not so strong - but there may a good case for saying that the family is
morally responsible.
CP>This is one of the few cases I have come across where people are parts of
an 'organisation' - i.e. all the activities of the person (part) are
activities of the whole. It seems to me kinship, ownership etc. are
particular cases of a more general intentional relation - which in some
cases implies parthood. And that ancient Rome is an example of where kinship
implies parthood.
> There is also the problem of different kinds of ownership.
> You may think of one of Shell's oil rigs as part of it, but
> is a subsidiary
> (and its assets).
MW: Yes.
> The problem is that the law says that one is not liable for
> the activities
> of a subsidiary in the same as an organization unit part or
> employee.
MW: I hope I've made the point that this is a red herring.
CP> I missed this - and I cannot find it now. Sorry, but can you remind me
(point me to it).
> The
> case always quoted is Kleinwort Benson vs Malaysian Mining
> Corp. (1989). KB
> had made a loan to a subsidiary of MMC. The situation is
> complicated by a
> letter of comfort sent by MMC to KB - which indicated it knew
> and approved
> of the loan. But the law said MMC was not responsible for its
> subsidiary. Is
> MMC's subsidiary a (legal) part of it? It seems to me that
> this is hard to
> argue for.
MW: Clearly legal parthood, financial parthood, and kinship
parthood are subtly different, and apply on different occassions.
CP> Also for arguments about what constitutes parthood. If you regard
financial parthood as another name for ownership, then you there can be no
argument. But I have a fundamental problem here. This means that
organizations can have different extents (under different kinds of
parthood) - so extension simpliciter becomes less reliable as a mechanism
for identity.
CP> No more commernts.
>
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com [mailto:Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com]
> Sent: 31 August 2001 11:06
> To: 'mail@ChrisPartridge.net'; Patrick Cassidy
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of
> organisation
>
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> I think that the different ways things can be a "part"
> of an organisation or a person are part of what makes them
> different.
>
>
> 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: Chris Partridge [mailto:chris_partridge@csi.com]
> > Sent: 31 August 2001 08:53
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; Patrick Cassidy
> > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: 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
> > >
> >
>