Re: [ontolog-forum] Prospects made into Customers and Vice Versa

[<rrovetto@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe others in this thread answered sufficiently, but here's my initial two cents from a philosophical perspective:

Prospect is a role.

Customer is a role.

They are played or borne by persons (perhaps organizations as well) at one or more times (moments or intervals).

(This is an arguably more ontologically accurate description and classification of Prospect and Customer)

Original implied definition of 'prospect' (according to A) is persons who have not bought something. As a role, it becomes: a role played by a person who has bought something.

Changed definition of 'prospect' is a customer who has not bought anything but is known by A. As a role it becomes: a type of customer role played by a person who has not bought anything but is known by A.

Changing definitions should be kept to a minimum.

If I were in a business that wanted an untrue change, i'd argue against it. At first glance I would at least adhere to the ordinary intuitions of Prospect being distinct from Customer. And there are coherent ways to define Prospect as a subclass of Customer. Because these are social constructs there's a greater flexibility to their characterization and definition. They also have inter-relationships to other social entities (e.g., Company) that may dictate that characterization.

The alternative and for example is to stipulate that the terms 'prospect' and 'customer' are being used in specific ways for that company, and that no claims to match natural language or ontology are made; this would presumably "allow" the company to make all sorts of crazy, ad hoc and inaccurate changes.

But again, as a philosopher the point would be to get it right to the extent such things can be represented correctly (truthfully, ontologically accurate, linguistically coherent, etc.).

Best,

Robert Rovetto

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Rich Cooper <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Tom

 

I would like to recapitulate your example of the company that has two divisions A and B.  B treats all prospects as customers while A distinguishes customers as those who have actually bought something in the past. 

 

The boss tells A division mgrs to up the customer count. So the A boss has the distinction changed so that people who have NEVER bought, but who are known by A, are now treated as customers just like the B division mgrs do it. 

 

While that change seems very normal and natural for a business to do that in trying to wrap its processes around the tax and risk constraints it has to deal with, it also seems like an untruth, since the English language says Prospects are not the same as Customers. 

 

How do you philosophers in the crowd deal with that kind of change of definition into something every business knows is just plain incorrect?

 

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper,

Rich Cooper,

 

Chief Technology Officer,

MetaSemantics Corporation

MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2

http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com

 

_________________________________________________________________
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)