RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of organisation
Dear Pat,
That's about right.
Some 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: Patrick Cassidy [mailto:pcassidy@bellatlantic.net]
> Sent: 09 September 2001 20:30
> To: Chris Partridge
> Cc: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK; cassidy@micra.com;
> standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature of
> organisation
>
>
> Chris and Matthew --
> Certainly an ontologist is free to define any
> "group" that is of interest in any way convenient.
> So it is certainly possible to define the group of
> companies including the parent as one "group", while
> viewing the parent as a separate entity.
> Viewed in that way, it could also be considered
> as an "organization" which is more than the
> sum of its members, since they have rules
> relating their interactions. But this would not
> correspond to any legal "organization" as
> far as I am aware.
MW: Correct.
> But what is the legal status of such a group?
MW: As far as I know it has none.
> I have no idea how the law treats this entity.
MW: It doesn't, in the same way a family is not treated
as a legal entity.
> Does it have a legal status differing from that
> of the parent and individual subsidiaries?
> If the liabilities of the individual companies
> do not transfer to the parent, then the
> individual companies are certainly not in the
> same relation as divisions of a unified company,
> and I suspect that there is no additional entity
> in law other than the individual subsidiaries and
> parent.
MW: Yes.
> So, as with other organizations we have been
> discussing, your ontology could have a bare
> "group" consisting of the individual subsidiaries
> and parent, and also a corresponding "organization"
> with those companies as members. But whereas your
> ontology would show, say, seven "organizations"
> there would be only six legal entities. And
> an entity called "XYZ Group, Ltd"
MW: It wouldn't be Ltd, just XYZ Group, e.g. the Shell
Group of companies (as we refer to ourselves).
> would not be
> the *same* entity as the overall group of it
> and its subsidiaries, nor the same as the
> organization defined with those companies as
> members. It would be a different ontological
> entity, though for some purposes the group/
> organization and parent may have similar properties.
MW: Yes
> This would be true in either
> 3-D or 4-D perspectives.
MW: The 4D perspective helps you to identify the
differnce between the objects, but I see nothing
to stop you having equivalent objects in a 3D
perspective.
> Does this conform to your interpretation?
MW: Pretty much.
>
> Pat Cassidy
>
> =================================
>
>
> Chris Partridge wrote:
>
> > Pat and Matthew,
> >
> > I agree with Matthew that this is where careful analysis leads you.
> > In normal conversation, the context tells us which one we
> are referring to.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > __________________________
> > Dear Pat,
> >
> > Well from my 4D perspective you start with two different
> organisations,
> > one of which is the legal company that owns the subsidiary,
> the other
> > of which is the Group of companies of which both the subsidiary and
> > parent are parts.
> >
> >
> > 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: Patrick Cassidy [mailto:pcassidy@bellatlantic.net]
> >>Sent: 03 September 2001 17:51
> >>To: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
> >>Cc: mail@ChrisPartridge.net; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> >>Subject: 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
> >>=============================================
> >>
> >>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK
> [SMTP:Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:53 AM
> > To: cassidy@micra.com
> > Cc: mail@ChrisPartridge.net; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: SUO: RE: RE: RE: 2000-7-26 example - nature
> of organisation
> >
> > << File: ATT00001.txt; charset = gb2312 >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> =============================================
> 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
> =============================================
>