-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 4:33 PM
To: Conklin, Don
Cc: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] to concept or not to concept, is this a question? (01)
>>Weighing in with Ingvar...
>>
>>If I want to describe an organization*, is it the people, the facilities
>>or the notion of an entity that performs some function in accordance
>>with internal guidance* and external laws*? The ideas in the guidance
>>and laws may be reduced to energy on phosphor or symbols in ink on paper
>>but it's the ideas that matter. How do I describe the idea of a design*
>>produced by the organization* that satisfies a customers mission
>>statement* as they compete in a economic marketspace* to reach their
>>annual goals*
>>
>> * = subclass of Concept (02)
>Well now, I understand all of the above until that last claim. This
>seems to me to illustrate a wise observation by Doug Lenat: you might
>have to have an upper ontology, but which one you have doesn't really
>matter a damn, because there's very little useful to say at the upper
>levels, and whatever you really want to say at the middle levels,
>where all the actual content is, can be made to fit with just about
>any upper level you like. I know a fair amount about organizations,
>designs, mission statements and annual goals, and enough about
>economic marketplaces and internal guidance to follow what others are
>saying, but I'm damned if I know anything worth writing down about
>Concepts. And indeed, if I were asked to come up with a name for a
>superclass of all those *'s, my reaction would be that they have
>nothing whatever in common. I fail to see how an organization can
>possibly be said to be a concept, in fact, or for that matter a
>mission statement (I have actually held mission statements in my
>hands at various times). Of course we can speak of a concept of an
>organization, but that's not the same as the organization itself. Can
>a concept have legal rights? Some organizations do. (03)
>Pat Hayes (04)
I tend to agree with Adam's (later) reply vis-à-vis the upper ontology. As far
as the mission statement documents you've held in your hand, I regard the
symbols in ink on the pages of those mission statement documents as the
physical representation of the concepts discussed in the mission statement. I
think the physical artifact is of secondary importance, the real value lies in
the ideas, concepts, notions (pick the favored term). Lockheed Martin
Corporation is a legal entity. You can hold the document of the article of
incorporation for LM Corp in your hand. That document establishes the legal
entity which I don't think you can hold in your hand. That's why I think a
corporation is a concept. Even if that legal entity has rights and
responsibilities under the law. BTW I am neither wedded nor welded to this
approach but it seems to make sense to me. Show me a better one and I'll
happily adopt it. (05)
D (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|