John, (01)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: 20 March 2007 01:22
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology and methodology
>
> Chris,
>
> I would model whatever legal structure was defined.
> From the Wikipedia article you cited:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. (02)
I think you are re-writing history here. (03)
See From Memory to Written Record: England 1066-1307 by M. T. Clanchy. (04)
As I have researched it, the situation was that bishops have always kept
their property intact - not the person occupying the position. The emerging
legal system originally did not accommodate this traditional practice, in
fact it was undermining it, so it was naturally extended to do so (very well
described in the reference above). (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)
So presumably when modelling the list of corporations sole I gave in the
original email - you would model them as the law described them. So, for
example, the President of the US would be a (let's call it a) position and
not a role. Given the current legal systems, this would then extend to quite
a large number of positions. (07)
Would you extend this courtesy to the 'positions' created in companies -
e.g. CEO, CFO. These have all the same characteristics as corporations sole
- within the company bureaucracy. (08)
It seems to me that if you do, your original notion of role is becoming
quite attenuated. If not, then you have an anomaly. (09)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> It's important to note that ontological categories are types,
> not sets.
>
> John
>
>
Chris (010)
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.14/727 - Release Date: 19/03/2007
11:49 (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|