Footnote: When I did a basic course in English law (many years ago now), a
contract was defined by offere, agreement and considerations (e.g.
payment). Only in the case of land was a written document required to
make it binding. As far as I know this basically has not changed,
although there may be modifications in certain areas. One consequence of
this is that if a shop puts the wrong price on a product (the offer) and
you agree to buy it, provide you pay, the shop cannot then change the
price. (01)
Sean Barker, Bristol (02)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: 07 July 2011 21:40
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy (03)
*** WARNING *** (04)
This message has originated outside your organisation,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message. (05)
On Thu, July 7, 2011 12:37, Mike Bennett said: (06)
> There is no problem describing financial products ontologically.
> Calipers are not a requirement. All financial products are contracts,
> and contracts are a real thing (07)
Agreed. (08)
> regardless of whether
> they consist of paper in a vault (as a few still do) or are maintained (09)
> electronically. (010)
Here is where one has to be careful. A contract is an agreement which
is documented in certain ways. English consistently uses words with
multiple meanings. In the case of "conceptual works", English usually
uses the same word for the work and for physical instantiations of that
work. A contract, book, poem, or law maintains its existence whether or
not written forms of them are maintained or destroyed. So yes, the
piece of paper or electronic record can be called a "contract" -- but
those contracts are not the agreements to which people are bound; they
are documentary evidence of the existence of agreements. (011)
So i would maintain that the financial product is intangible. (012)
> If you don't think contracts are real, try breaking one :)
>
> The dimensions along which they are defined are, as you rightly
> suggest, where it gets interesting. One look at the ISO 10962
> Classification of Financial Instruments standard will show what a
> challenge it is to try and articificially shoe-horn the whole lot into (013)
> one dimension - you simply can't. (014)
Of course. (015)
-- doug foxvog (016)
> Mike
>
> On 07/07/2011 16:21, David Eddy wrote:
>> John -
>>
>> On 2011-07-06, at 12:45 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
>>
>>> And a warning: Unless you can find an immutable law of nature that
>>> creates a classification, don't expect it to be a solid foundation
>>> for a "standard ontology".
>> Agreed.
>>
>> My view of (imagined) reality has been largely financial services
>> (e.g. mutual funds, brokerage, banking,& various forms of
>> insurance). In my career, I have only worked directly for a single
>> firm that actually made a physical product (junk jewelry)...
>> otherwise everything has been paper pushing, describing various
>> facets of non-dimensional products.
>>
>> Quite naturally, since these industries are all conjured out of thin
>> air, there are no natural laws to impose organizational discipline.
>>
>> From what I've seen, "organization" is largely the last minute
>> panic to make the next deadline. Does tend to leave a chaotic
>> residue which only gets worse over time.
>>
>>
>> Since this ontology interest has arisen, it has been rattling around
>> in the back of my mind if ontologies can be applied to things like
>> financial "products."
>>
>>
>> Personally I vacillate between describing financial "products" as
>> either "non-dimensional" or "N-dimensional." In any case these
>> products are stuff that cannot be put on a scale& weighted or have a (017)
>> caliper applied to them. It's just information which as far as I
>> know we have no idea how to measure other than silly things like
>> "lines of code."
>>
>> ___________________
>> David Eddy
>> deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Mike Bennett
> Director
> Hypercube Ltd.
> 89 Worship Street
> London EC2A 2BF
> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
> Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
> www.hypercube.co.uk
> Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (018)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (019)
"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.
============================================================= (020)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (021)
|