...
BE72 Execs should be legally capable persons. Are they not? Model shows hasIdentity as a LegallyCapablePerson which is right. We should review the SME review notes since it is possible that we identified an edge case where organizations can occupy executive roles: This is an edge case but (if it is borne out by the SME Review) then we should not lock in the assumption for all cases. We should not change the model to constrain things further without business evidence that this is a constraint always. A change in the definition in the cited dictionary actually says person or group, which is even looser. So there is no case to restrict this further. DN makes the point that our definition when it uses a word like Person, people would assume we were meaning the same by a word in a written definition, as is reflected by the concept with that word in FIBO, and not use definitions harvested in external sources wholesale. PR recommends we do this incrementally as we find those definitions. There are in any case a lot of definitions which are terminologically incorrect, or just plain incorrect, done to earlier substitutions from Internet sources. We cannot both reflect Internet sources, and be an internally consistent terminology. Our aim is to be terminologically consistent. Is it possible that any old Organization can be an Executive? We probably don't trust that Internet definition that said "Organization" anyway, the question was whether a formally constituted, legal person, could itself be an Executive. Again, we don't know so we would err on the side of caution. Relates to a distinction between Officer and Office. Would not affect specific offices like CEO and CFO, as these have specific legal requirements. By Office do we mean a sub unit, as a group of people, or do we mean a position? (we don't have Office at all in FBO now). Companies might e.g. have a CDO but might have a Data Governance Council, as in Nordea, but no CDO per se. So the requirement in some regulations to have such an office, would be met by some group of people (the CD Office or Data council in this case). So there are unclear edge cases, again, in the realm of Executive. (In the wonky Internet definition, it is "group" not an artificial legal person) support persons plural, not necessarily artificial legal person. The Business dictionary is the source for the discussion above, and has changed since we incorporated it into FIBO. And it does not have an ontology behind it. The broader question is whether we want to be regarded as the authority for what things mean, or are we simply providing some OWL applications that are based on some other authority. We do not know of examples of entities being executives, but until we know it absolutely cannot happen there is no case to change the semantics of the model from what it is now, to what David proposes. David proposes that the definition be enhanced with Group. MB notes that Group has a meaning in FBO which incudes a group of companies. So that would fall afoul of our newly minted rule for definitions. We would instead have to create a sub class of groups of people and reference that in that definition. But only after we have established that what David finds surprising is in at globally impossible. JB: how does this relate to the concept of an officer of the organization that can speak and make legally binding contracts on behalf of the corporation? This is correctly shown in FIBO as is. Strategy for moving this forward. Elisa can come to David's office, would like to first see that David and Dean are ready with proposed resolutions. DN expects them to have at least have the 3 way diffs. Still waiting for Dean to deliver that list.
Action items
- Dennis Wisnosky I created subtask - MB in BE-86 and DN in BE-85.