[ontolog-forum] Person, Organization, and Citizens United vs. The Federa

["David C. Hay" <dch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Whoa!

You've touched on an area that really burns me up.  For years now,
my models have shown Party which is an abstract super-type that
designates either a Person or an
Organization.  A Person is defined as an individual
human being, and an Organization is defined as a group of human
beings, brought together physically or virtually for some
purpose.

In my world (the US Supreme Court notwithstanding) an Organization
is not a Person!  The Supreme Court
decision (Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission, 2010)
confusing these two very different concepts has had profound political
impact in the United States, and may prove to be the end of the American
democracy.

Yes, the distinction is important.

If you want to talk about something that could be either  a
Person or an Organization, the concept Party
works just fine.

Dave Hay


At 02:21 PM 10/3/2012, you wrote:
> On 10/3/2012 8:06 AM, Andries
> van Renssen wrote:
> > for me 'person' is not a role. But customer, student, patient,
> performer,
> > enabler, etc. are roles, because they are extrinsic aspects
> which
> > existence depend on a relation with some other role player.
>
> The word 'person' is derived from the Roman 'persona', which was
> applied
> to the masks worn by actors in Greco-Roman tragedies and
> comedies.
>
> The etymology shows its origin: 'persona' comes from 'per sonare'
> (to sound through) -- the lips were usually exaggerated in a kind
> of megaphone that helped the actors project their voices in the
> outdoor amphitheaters.
>
> The two-word phrase 'human being' is the most neutral English term
> for an individual of the species Homo sapiens.  Other English
> words,
> 'man', 'woman', 'boy', 'girl', 'child', and 'adult' designate
> a human being of a particular sex and/or age.
>
> Since the US legal system has adopted the word 'person' for a role
> that can be played by an organization, the role aspect has been
> emphasized, rather than diminished by time.
>
> To be absolutely neutral, an ontology could use the term HumanBeing
> for an instance of Homo sap.  Then the category Person could be
> used for individuals or organizations that have a certain legal
> status in society.
>
> The distinction is important.  The character string used in the
> KRep
> is less significant.  One solution is to use the URI or IRI as
> the
> official designator, and to have a list of possible realizations
> in different languages in the document that describes the term.
>
> John Sowa
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>  

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)