Chris, (01)
I would model whatever legal structure was defined.
From the Wikipedia article you cited: (02)
W> In English law, a corporation sole is a legal entity
> consisting of a single ('sole') incorporated office,
> occupied by a single ('sole') man or woman. This
> allows the corporation to pass vertically in time
> from one office holder to the next successor-in-office,
> giving the position legal continuity with each subsequent
> office holder having identical powers to his predecessor. (03)
This reinforces my point: if you give something to a
bishop, it is not clear whether your donation is a gift
to the person or to the organization headed by that
person. Therefore, the lawyers explicitly created
a "legal entity" that is distinct from the person. (04)
The fact that such a law was required indicates that the
normal interpretation is that Bishop James and the person
James are one and the same individual. (05)
But if the law states that there exists a corporation
that is distinct from the individual, I would model
the legal entity defined by the law. (06)
CP> I think you have restated my position. What you do not
> mean is that X and Y are timeless sets and that X is a
> sub-set of Y - because the members of X and Y change over
> time. (07)
Actually, I said "types", not "sets". A set cannot change
without becoming a different set, and a type cannot change
without becoming a different type. But the denotation of
a type at different times may be completely different sets. (08)
It's important to note that ontological categories are types,
not sets. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|