Re: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
Matthew --
In the special case of wholly-owned companies that
are considered by management to be "part" of the
parent company, is there any reason why the
relation between parent and subsidiary could
not be represented both as "ownedBy" and
as "subOrganization"?
This might not be appropriate where ownership
is less than total.
Pat Cassidy
================================
"West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK" wrote:
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> Yes you are confused about what I am trying to say.
>
> 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 16:25
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
> > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of
> > organisation
> >
> >
> > Matthew,
> >
> > I am getting a bit lost here - can I summarise what I think
> > the point I was
> > trying to make is.
> >
> > You seem to be saying that you (and Simons) believe that
> > there are wholes,
> > which can be viewed as mereological sums of different
> > collections of parts.
>
> MW: Not simple mereological sums, but ones that have a
> structuring relation that makes the whole something other
> (more) than the sum of its parts.
>
> > To take a simple example:
> >
> > Consider one of Shell's group companies - Shell Transport
> > say. Under the
> > notion of legal liability it does not extend to its
> > subsidiaries. Under a
> > notion of commercial operations it does. So it has a legal
> > extension with
> > legal parts and a commercial extension with commercial parts
> > - where (let us
> > assume for simplicity) all the legal parts are also
> > commercial parts. Is
> > this right?
>
> MW: To be precise (for Shell) there is the legal entity Shell
> Transport, and its legal parts are what they are. There is a
> commercial (lets say) entity The Shell Group which all the
> companies owned (and whose accounts are consolidated) and
> are eventually owned by Royal Dutch or Shell Transport.
> Royal Dutch and Shell TRansport themselves would be part of
> this commercial entity.
>
> MW: In a 4D world I know these are different because they
> have a different extent. I don't know how you would decide
> in a 3D world.
>
> > If so, I'd be grateful for the Simons page
> > reference, as I have
> > just tried looking through it with no success.
>
> MW: Since Simon's viewpoint is 3D, the key element he brought
> to me was the structuring relation in non sum part/whole.
>
> Chapter 9 on Integral Wholes was my source pp326-329 in particular.
>
> >
> > Just to be clear - it seems to me that you are not advocating
> > a strategy
> > where there is a legal Shell Transport, which is part of
> > commercial Shell
> > transport.
>
> MW: Yes I am. The activities taking place in Shell Transport are
> part of the activities of the Shell Group.
> >
> > 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: 31 August 2001 17:07
> > To: 'mail@ChrisPartridge.net'
> > 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 15:17
> > > To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
> > > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > > Subject: RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of
> > > organisation
> > >
> > >
> > > Matthew,
> > >
> > > Comments below marked CP>>
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com
> > [mailto:Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com]
> > > Sent: 31 August 2001 15:42
> > > 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,
> > >
> > > My reading of Peter Simons book "Parts" is that there are two
> > > types of mereological object.
> > >
> > > 1. Pure mereological sums, where the whole is precisely
> > > the sum of the parts. These are important theoretically,
> > > but in practice are generally uninteresting.
> > >
> > > 2. Mereological sums where the whole is something more
> > > than the sum of the parts. In this case there is at
> > > least one structuring relation that collects the
> > > parts together.
> > >
> > > The range of structuring relations varies enormously, and
> > > results in objects whose parts are more and less tightly bound to
> > > each other.
> > >
> > > So the parts of a lump of metal are more closely bound than
> > > the parts of a pump, which are more closely bound in turn
> > > to the assets of a company.
> > >
> > > As far as I can see there can be an almost infinite variety
> > > of structuring relations.
> > >
> > > I therefore see no need for a one size fits all approach
> > > for how people are parts of companies, and how companies
> > > are parts of other companies, and the basis certainly
> > > doesn't have to be one of legal responsibility.
> > >
> > > CP>> All agreed for now. My point works the other way. You
> > > seem to be saying
> > > that a single whole can be the mereological sum of two
> > > different collections
> > > of parts depending upon how you look at it. My (admittedly rusty)
> > > recollection of Peter Simons is that he does not cover this
> > situation.
> >
> > MW: This only applies if the spatio-temporal extent is the
> > same, and is
> > then an accident, just as the vase and the clay possibly
> > being the same
> > object is
> > an accident.
> > >
> > > More 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
> > >
> > >
> > > snip
> > > > > 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?
> > >
> > > MW: In this case yes.
> > >
> > > > Shell is a
> > > > good example (as
> > > > usual). Do the two holding companies produce consolidated
> > > > accounts for their
> > > > partial holdings?
> > >
> > > MW: Royal Dutch and Shell Transport produce separate accounts. They
> > > each have a 60:40 share in a number (3 I think) of holding
> > companies,
> > > which in turn own all the other companies in the Shell
> > Group directly
> > > or indirectly. Neither Royal Dutch nor Shell Transport have
> > any other
> > > interests, so for all practical purposes the companies are
> > > indistinguishable, except that the shares are quoted on different
> > > stock markets.
> > >
> > > Figures for the whole Group are also produced.
> > >
> > > CP>>Who produces the figures for the whole group? Presumably
> > > that they are
> > > produced implies that there is an entity (not legally
> > > recognized anywhere)
> > > which is Shell Group. Now, if the figures are the
> > consolidation of the
> > > figures for the three holding companies (as I suspect is
> > > true), then these
> > > are the parts of the group. Let's also assume that these
> > > figures are not
> > > presented as figures consolidating the Royal Dutch and
> > Shell Transport
> > > figures (if they in fact are, is there any reason why they
> > > have to be?) - so
> > > where does this leave them. Are they parts of the group? The
> > > consolidation
> > > criteria would seem to indicate not.
> >
> > MW: Indeed. I think we would say that Royal Dutch and Shell transport
> > own indistinguishable shares of the group.
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > MW: I disagree, I believe they are exactly the basis of parthood
> > > for holding companies.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > MW: You keep coming bakc to the legal aspect as if it is the only
> > > possible basis for parthood. Please, it is one of many possible
> > > bases. It obviously is not the case in the UK or US, certainly
> > > not when individuals have reached the age of majority.
> > > CP>>I am not sure that I have been saying that the legal
> > > aspect as if it is
> > > the only possible basis for parthood. In fact I am sure I
> > > have not. The law
> > > clearly does not describe all cases of parthood. An obvious case of
> > > non-legal parthood that I have mentioned a number of times is
> > > a section
> > > being part of a department. My interest in the law is that it
> > > is useful
> > > because it provides a reasonably regimented description of
> > > what it intends.
> > > And so saves time discussing interpretation.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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, certainly in practice. The ownership essentially reflects
> > > authority (who tells who to do what).
> > > CP>> You say "ownership" - is this because you regard
> > > ownership as one of
> > > the kinds of parthood?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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).
> > >
> > > MW: It is the whole point that there can be different structuring
> > > relations that give rise to different types of parthood, and legal
> > > responsibility is one of these, but far from the only one.
> > > CP>> I am still a bit lost. Is the point that legal
> > > responsibility is (not a
> > > red herring but only) one of many ways of being a part? So it
> > > is a good
> > > guide to legal part - but not to some other kind of part. NB
> > > So this means
> > > Shell can be decomposed (and re-composed) into many
> > different kinds of
> > > parts - but is the same single Shell (my recollection of
> > > Simons (remember
> > > rusty) is that he would have different shells for each
> > > mereological sum -
> > > but allow the same parts to be fused into different wholes).
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > MW: In a 4D world it is still farily simple, since spatio-temporal
> > > extension is teh basis for identify. However, this just moves the
> > > problem to what classes is it a member of.
> > > CP>> I am not so sure - the parts have a spatio-temporal
> > > extent - and the
> > > fusion of the parts has only one spatio-temporal extent - or
> > > we have weird
> > > kind of space-time.
> > >
> > >
> > > MW: This implies that whn you look at a holding company, there would
> > > be two objects under the different sorts of parthood, the
> > > company itself
> > > and the group which it owned. This actually reflects pretty well how
> > > things are treated and talked about in Shell, where the
> > Shell Group is
> > > seen as somethign different from either (or both of) Shell transport
> > > and Royal Dutch.
> > >
> > > CP>> This seems closer to my understanding where you multiply
> > > the wholes
> > > (with different sub-parthood relations) rather than the
> > > parthood relations
> > > to a single whole.
> > >
> > > CP>> No more comments.
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
--
=============================================
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
=============================================