>John,
>
>I think I can see where the misunderstanding arises.
>
>JS> For example, a pet is an animal that plays a certain role
>with respect to another animal, usually human. (For example,
>the gorilla Koko had a pet cat, which she named "All-Ball"
>in her sign language.)
>
>To keep is simple assume John is an employee of IBM.
>
>Would there be a single object (John), who is an instance of both employee
>and person, in your scheme of things? I think you need this to get your
>sub-type relation.
>
>In my scheme of things there would be two things, firstly John and secondly
>John's being an employee of IBM. Where the first object is an instance of
>person and the second of employee. In this scheme, it is difficult to get
>the sub-type relation. (01)
Whoa. John's *being an employee* of IBM (my
emphasis) sounds like a trope, a particular
instance of the employer/employee relationship.
Or maybe something else: but it sure doesn't
sound like *an employee*. If there is a fire
alarm in a building, all the employees are
required to evacuate and stand in the car-park to
be counted. One counts the people in the
car-park, right? One doesn't count the
being-an-employee-s in the car park. I don't know
how I would be able to see those, anyway. (02)
>This enables me to allocate responsibility to the employee but not to the
>person. (03)
So if I steal some money from my employer, can I
plead in defence that I am a person, but the
theft was carried out by the employee, so I
should be released? (04)
You get problems like this when you multiply
entities. Seems to me pretty obvious that I am a
person and I am also an employee, and also that
there is just one of me. (05)
Pat (06)
>
>A legal example of this is "corporation sole"
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_sole
>which allows rights to pass from one 'role' to another.
>
>Regards,
>Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>Sent: 19 March 2007 12:30
>To: [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology and methodology
>
>Chris,
>
>I would say it's much more than "often necessary". It's
>absolutely essential to distinguish them:
>
>CP> In business systems it is often necessary to distinguish
> > between the 'role' someone plays, whether more general,
> > such as employee, or more specific, such as FX Dealer
> > in order to carry out the business processes.
>
>For example, a pet is an animal that plays a certain role
>with respect to another animal, usually human. (For example,
>the gorilla Koko had a pet cat, which she named "All-Ball"
>in her sign language.)
>
>In the type hierarchy, I place all role types under the
>supertype Role, which is further differentiated according
>to a wide variety of different characteristics.
>
>Pet, for example, is in the sublattice under Role, but
>it is also under Animal, since every pet is an animal.
>Then PetCat is a subtype of both Pet and Cat. A cat
>is a cat for its entire life, but it may become a pet
>and later stray.
>
>Employee is under Role, and depending on your business,
>you might include it under Human, Animal, or even Animate.
>(I use the category Animate as a supertype of Animal that
>can also include such things as robots and angels.)
>
> > What is key here is that the role is the subject of
> > rights and responsibilities.... Also, these rights
> > and responsibilities track the employee (FX Dealer)
> > through time, but NOT the person.
>
>I certainly agree. In CLCE or any other dialect of
>Common Logic, the type Employee would have additional
>axioms beyond just the statement Employee < Person.
>
> > Hence, it does not make sense to think, as you seem to suggest
> > in your mail that, at a point in time, employees are a subtype
> > of person - without also giving some explanation about what
> > happens over time - and how an employee at a point in time can
> > act ex officio as a person and not an employee.
>
>Of course. How could you possibly imagine that I would ever
>suggest anything else? No email note is big enough to include
>all possible qualifications.
>
>All roles are temporary, even though some, such as Brother or
>Mother, might last a lifetime. The thematic roles, such as
>Agent, Experiencer, Patient, Recipient, etc., have durations
>that last only as long as the action or state specified by a verb,
>which may be very short indeed.
>
>John
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (07)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|