Re: SUO: RE: Axiom and Intentionality vs Extentionality
Dear Edward Dawidowicz, thanks for the comment.
Actually a driver appear to be part of one organization even if it is not
employed by anybody. He is part of the "organization" created locally by
other drivers. A good example of this kind of organization is when several
drivers are driving in the fog in a lane. The first has a job as leader that
is different from the fellows driver that follow him. This is a case of weak
organization or of self-organization that by the way generally emerge more
clearly in emergency. This kind of self.organization between peers are very
interesting because tend to be pretty resilient.
All the best. Roberto Bordogna.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dawidowicz, Edward CECOM RDEC C2D"
<Edward.Dawidowicz@mail1.monmouth.army.mil>
To: "'roberto bordogna'" <bordogna@tin.it>; "Ian Niles"
<iniles@teknowledge.com>; <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: 06.novembre.2001 15.06
Subject: RE: SUO: RE: Axiom and Intentionality vs Extentionality
>
> Roberto and Ian,
>
> Good idea and...
>
> Below, Roberto had made a good suggestion to Ian.
> Roberto brought up "In fact a person as a real actor is member of several
> organization at the same times (for instance is a family man, a driver, an
> employee and so on...). All these organizations influence the actor
behavior
> together, but on a contingency base."
>
> What is interesting however is that the word "driver" contextually does
not
> fit in OrganizationFn unless he is employed by an organization as driver.
A
> vehicle, if he drives one, in not an organization.
>
> Best
>
> Edward Dawidowicz
>
> US Army, CECOM, RDEC
> Command and Control Directorate
> Tel: (732) 427-4122 DSN 987-4122
> Fax (732) 427-3440
> E-Mail edward.dawidowicz@mail1.monmouth.army.mil
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: roberto bordogna [mailto:bordogna@tin.it]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 7:01 AM
> To: Ian Niles; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: SUO: RE: Axiom and Intentionality vs Extentionality
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Niles" <iniles@teknowledge.com>
> We could remove the concept of
>
> ... 'Organization' from the SUMO all together and then define a function,
> called
> > "OrganizationFn", say, that takes an 'OrganizationUnit' and a
> 'TimePosition'
> > as arguments and then returns a 'Collection' as its value, where the
> > 'Collection' returned would be the 'members', if any, associated with
the
> > 'OrganizationUnit'. In cases where the 'OrganizationUnit' had no
> > corresponding 'members', the 'NullSet' would be returned. What do you
> > think? What do other people think of this idea?
>
> Ian, it appears a very good Idea,at least to me. I would add a context
> argument too to the function.
>
> In fact a person as a real actor is member of several organization at the
> same times (for instance is a family man, a driver, an employee and so
> on...). All these organizations influence the actor behavior together,
but
> on a contingency base.
>
> Actually this idea to define an Entity dynamically seems very promising
and
> of general use, also for artificial agents.
>
> In fact in this way it might be possible to contingency select a
> particular ontology "module" dynamically, at any given time for instance
> accordingly to some kind of context or field inputs.
>
> Regards.
>
> Roberto Bordogna.
>
>
>