On Tue, January 11, 2011 15:57, Simon Spero said:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Mike Bennett
> <mbennett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: (01)
>> Fungible means that for two things which are fungible, one can be
>> directly replaced with the other, without any effect.
>> [...] (02)
>> This is a formal and well understood concept, so there is not much need
>> to reinvent it. (03)
> That's mostly right (no legal effect). The set of things count that
> count
> as equivalent can be defined by usage of trade, and to specific agreement
> amongst parties: (04)
According to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which is a specific
context): (05)
> "Fungible goods" means: (A) goods of which any unit, by nature or usage
> of
> trade, is the equivalent of any other like unit; or (B) goods that by
> agreement <http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#Agreement> are
> treated as equivalent. UCC § <goog_1511525173>1
> <goog_1511525173>-<goog_1511525173>201
> (b) (18) <http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-201> (06)
For ontological purposes, it would be good to create three concepts here:
UCC#FungibleGoodsA
-- UCC#Goods of which any unit is the equiv. of any other like unit
UCC#FungibleGoodsB
-- UCC#Goods that by agreement UCC#Agreement are treated as equivalent.
UCC#FungibleGoods
-- the union of UCC#FungibleGoodsA and UCC#FungibleGoodsB
-- This would be a subclass of UCC#Goods (07)
The UCC definitions do not say, but i would guess that any instance of
UCC#FungibleGoodsB is considered a "fungible good" only in the context
of the appropriate UCC#Agreement(s). [To ontologize this, a SME should
clarify.] (08)
> So it might be possible for houses to be fungible if the parties involved
> agree to it (though because houses are Real property, the UCC doesn't
> apply, (09)
If the UCC doesn't apply to houses, the UCC definitions would not apply
either. If houses aren't instances of UCC#Goods, they can't be instances
of a subcategory, UCC#FungibleGoodsB. (010)
Another definition must be found that would include (011)
> and since Real property law is weird, there may be some block). There are
> plausible situations involving properties bought for investment purposes
> where fungibility would make sense. (012)
In the context of an agreement, and under some other definition from those
given above. This type of fungibility would be defined in some other
ontology than the UCC one. (013)
-- doug f (014)
> Simon
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (015)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (016)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
============================================================= (017)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (018)
|