gist:Contract Needed - Githubissues

tedhills commented 6 years ago

We could really use a class, gist:Contract, defined as a subclass of gist:Agreement, defined as follows:

a formal and legally binding agreement

DanCarey404 commented 6 years ago

Sorry for the delayed reply...

Just out of curiosity, why not have a category :AgreementType with an instance to cover Contract?

On the other hand, Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business, it probably would not create confusion to introduce the class even without a formal restriction available for it.

tedhills commented 6 years ago

Dan, I think the answer is implicit in your own observation: “Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business”. I think therefore it deserves its own class. Also, other ontologies like FIBO have a Contract class, that having one in gist improves inter-operability.

Thanks,

Ted

From: Dan Carey notifications@github.com Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:33 AM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: Ted Hills thills@acm.org; Author author@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Sorry for the delayed reply...

Just out of curiosity, why not have a category :AgreementType with an instance to cover Contract?

On the other hand, Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business, it probably would not create confusion to introduce the class even without a formal restriction available for it.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381647280 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4LYkwMhQqX27TAwIGbV_K8v8abT-ks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4J-aBfSUnHgXm5-_ucU29ygLBgaFks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

uscholdm commented 6 years ago

The question is what we want to say about a Contract that is more than just an agreement, There a zillions of kinds of contract also.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 5:31 AM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: Subscribed subscribed@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Dan, I think the answer is implicit in your own observation: “Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business”. I think therefore it deserves its own class. Also, other ontologies like FIBO have a Contract class, that having one in gist improves inter-operability.

Thanks,

Ted

From: Dan Carey notifications@github.com Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:33 AM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: Ted Hills thills@acm.org; Author author@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Sorry for the delayed reply...

Just out of curiosity, why not have a category :AgreementType with an instance to cover Contract?

On the other hand, Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business, it probably would not create confusion to introduce the class even without a formal restriction available for it.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381647280 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4LYkwMhQqX27TAwIGbV_K8v8abT-ks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4J-aBfSUnHgXm5-_ucU29ygLBgaFks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381975049, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyR_qK-9hqxmpm9Y5q1IoUiI8fkh9ks5tpeB3gaJpZM4TFzrl.

tedhills commented 6 years ago

The current gist definition of Agreement is—pardon me—a bit silly:

A contract or other binding agreement, usually evidenced by signature(s).

First of all, as any lawyer will tell you—and contrary to popular belief—verbal agreements can be binding, so the emphasis on a signature is odd. That sounds like a definition for a class such as WrittenAgreement—which evokes Contract, but is not Contract.

Second, how do we represent an informal, non-enforceable agreement such as an agreement to meet somewhere, if we can’t use gist:Agreement? For example: “Let’s meet at the fountain in the mall at 2:30.” I can imagine real business scenarios where we

So, I think we should alter gist to have the following definitions.

Agreement: something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation.

Contract: an Agreement which can be enforced by law

There can then be an unlimited number of subclasses of Agreements and Contracts, with the fundamental distinction regarding enforcement remaining.

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold notifications@github.com Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:09 PM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: Ted Hills thills@acm.org; Author author@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The question is what we want to say about a Contract that is more than just an agreement, There a zillions of kinds of contract also.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 5:31 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com mailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Dan, I think the answer is implicit in your own observation: “Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business”. I think therefore it deserves its own class. Also, other ontologies like FIBO have a Contract class, that having one in gist improves inter-operability.

Thanks,

Ted

From: Dan Carey <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:33 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Sorry for the delayed reply...

Just out of curiosity, why not have a category :AgreementType with an instance to cover Contract?

On the other hand, Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business, it probably would not create confusion to introduce the class even without a formal restriction available for it.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381647280 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4LYkwMhQqX27TAwIGbV_K8v8abT-ks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4J-aBfSUnHgXm5-_ucU29ygLBgaFks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381975049, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyR_qK-9hqxmpm9Y5q1IoUiI8fkh9ks5tpeB3gaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382460040 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4DI-UImN2FF_RsXbUJobk6M1A12tks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4F47S_y_eyeineH15Ay5LGEsDvjNks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

uscholdm commented 6 years ago

Fair points, the legal part is a good distinction.

This following does not quite catch the maning however: “something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation”.

Not sure how best to improve it.

M.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:50 AM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: MIchael Uschold uschold@gmail.com; Comment comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The current gist definition of Agreement is—pardon me—a bit silly:

A contract or other binding agreement, usually evidenced by signature(s).

First of all, as any lawyer will tell you—and contrary to popular belief—verbal agreements can be binding, so the emphasis on a signature is odd. That sounds like a definition for a class such as WrittenAgreement—which evokes Contract, but is not Contract.

Second, how do we represent an informal, non-enforceable agreement such as an agreement to meet somewhere, if we can’t use gist:Agreement? For example: “Let’s meet at the fountain in the mall at 2:30.” I can imagine real business scenarios where we

So, I think we should alter gist to have the following definitions.

Agreement: something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation.

Contract: an Agreement which can be enforced by law

There can then be an unlimited number of subclasses of Agreements and Contracts, with the fundamental distinction regarding enforcement remaining.

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold notifications@github.com Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:09 PM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: Ted Hills thills@acm.org; Author author@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The question is what we want to say about a Contract that is more than just an agreement, There a zillions of kinds of contract also.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 5:31 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com mailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Dan, I think the answer is implicit in your own observation: “Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business”. I think therefore it deserves its own class. Also, other ontologies like FIBO have a Contract class, that having one in gist improves inter-operability.

Thanks,

Ted

From: Dan Carey <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:33 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Sorry for the delayed reply...

Just out of curiosity, why not have a category :AgreementType with an instance to cover Contract?

On the other hand, Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business, it probably would not create confusion to introduce the class even without a formal restriction available for it.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381647280 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4LYkwMhQqX27TAwIGbV_K8v8abT-ks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4J-aBfSUnHgXm5-_ucU29ygLBgaFks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381975049, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyR_qK-9hqxmpm9Y5q1IoUiI8fkh9ks5tpeB3gaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382460040 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4DI-UImN2FF_RsXbUJobk6M1A12tks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4F47S_y_eyeineH15Ay5LGEsDvjNks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382472608, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzybMoyajpD6xZQn7jSH6VDFoS4Edfks5tp3zZgaJpZM4TFzrl.

tedhills commented 6 years ago

I am happy with my own proposed definition. 😊 If it’s not catching some meaning, you will have to indicate what’s missing.

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold notifications@github.com Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:26 PM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: Ted Hills thills@acm.org; Author author@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Fair points, the legal part is a good distinction.

This following does not quite catch the maning however: “something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation”.

Not sure how best to improve it.

M.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:50 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: MIchael Uschold <uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com >; Comment <comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The current gist definition of Agreement is—pardon me—a bit silly:

A contract or other binding agreement, usually evidenced by signature(s).

First of all, as any lawyer will tell you—and contrary to popular belief—verbal agreements can be binding, so the emphasis on a signature is odd. That sounds like a definition for a class such as WrittenAgreement—which evokes Contract, but is not Contract.

Second, how do we represent an informal, non-enforceable agreement such as an agreement to meet somewhere, if we can’t use gist:Agreement? For example: “Let’s meet at the fountain in the mall at 2:30.” I can imagine real business scenarios where we

So, I think we should alter gist to have the following definitions.

Agreement: something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation.

Contract: an Agreement which can be enforced by law

There can then be an unlimited number of subclasses of Agreements and Contracts, with the fundamental distinction regarding enforcement remaining.

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:09 PM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The question is what we want to say about a Contract that is more than just an agreement, There a zillions of kinds of contract also.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 5:31 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com mailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com mailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Dan, I think the answer is implicit in your own observation: “Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business”. I think therefore it deserves its own class. Also, other ontologies like FIBO have a Contract class, that having one in gist improves inter-operability.

Thanks,

Ted

From: Dan Carey <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com%20%3cmailto:notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:33 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org%20%3cmailto:thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Sorry for the delayed reply...

Just out of curiosity, why not have a category :AgreementType with an instance to cover Contract?

On the other hand, Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business, it probably would not create confusion to introduce the class even without a formal restriction available for it.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381647280 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4LYkwMhQqX27TAwIGbV_K8v8abT-ks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4J-aBfSUnHgXm5-_ucU29ygLBgaFks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381975049, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyR_qK-9hqxmpm9Y5q1IoUiI8fkh9ks5tpeB3gaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382460040 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4DI-UImN2FF_RsXbUJobk6M1A12tks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4F47S_y_eyeineH15Ay5LGEsDvjNks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382472608, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzybMoyajpD6xZQn7jSH6VDFoS4Edfks5tp3zZgaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382483641 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4Pt9tl-2j1DoHxWBFm-HtqXSyxFEks5tp4VHgaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4A3FYWMZKema96vLB0Owx82xyv0Uks5tp4VHgaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

uscholdm commented 6 years ago

Its stronger than intending, it is a commitment of sorts.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:23 AM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: MIchael Uschold uschold@gmail.com; Comment comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

I am happy with my own proposed definition. 😊 If it’s not catching some meaning, you will have to indicate what’s missing.

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold notifications@github.com Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:26 PM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: Ted Hills thills@acm.org; Author author@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Fair points, the legal part is a good distinction.

This following does not quite catch the maning however: “something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation”.

Not sure how best to improve it.

M.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:50 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: MIchael Uschold <uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com >; Comment <comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The current gist definition of Agreement is—pardon me—a bit silly:

A contract or other binding agreement, usually evidenced by signature(s).

First of all, as any lawyer will tell you—and contrary to popular belief—verbal agreements can be binding, so the emphasis on a signature is odd. That sounds like a definition for a class such as WrittenAgreement—which evokes Contract, but is not Contract.

Second, how do we represent an informal, non-enforceable agreement such as an agreement to meet somewhere, if we can’t use gist:Agreement? For example: “Let’s meet at the fountain in the mall at 2:30.” I can imagine real business scenarios where we

So, I think we should alter gist to have the following definitions.

Agreement: something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation.

Contract: an Agreement which can be enforced by law

There can then be an unlimited number of subclasses of Agreements and Contracts, with the fundamental distinction regarding enforcement remaining.

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:09 PM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The question is what we want to say about a Contract that is more than just an agreement, There a zillions of kinds of contract also.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 5:31 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com mailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com mailto:subscribed@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Dan, I think the answer is implicit in your own observation: “Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business”. I think therefore it deserves its own class. Also, other ontologies like FIBO have a Contract class, that having one in gist improves inter-operability.

Thanks,

Ted

From: Dan Carey <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com%20%3cmailto:notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:33 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org%20%3cmailto:thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Sorry for the delayed reply...

Just out of curiosity, why not have a category :AgreementType with an instance to cover Contract?

On the other hand, Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business, it probably would not create confusion to introduce the class even without a formal restriction available for it.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381647280 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4LYkwMhQqX27TAwIGbV_K8v8abT-ks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4J-aBfSUnHgXm5-_ucU29ygLBgaFks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381975049, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyR_qK-9hqxmpm9Y5q1IoUiI8fkh9ks5tpeB3gaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382460040 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4DI-UImN2FF_RsXbUJobk6M1A12tks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4F47S_y_eyeineH15Ay5LGEsDvjNks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382472608, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzybMoyajpD6xZQn7jSH6VDFoS4Edfks5tp3zZgaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382483641 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4Pt9tl-2j1DoHxWBFm-HtqXSyxFEks5tp4VHgaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4A3FYWMZKema96vLB0Owx82xyv0Uks5tp4VHgaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382713797, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyfmVjssI2ZMWjE1VotVU0hGmOJEqks5tqIGggaJpZM4TFzrl.

tedhills commented 6 years ago

How about:

Agreement: something which two or more SocialBeings cooperatively commit to do.

Contract: an Agreement which can be enforced by law

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold notifications@github.com Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 12:56 PM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: Ted Hills thills@acm.org; Author author@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Its stronger than intending, it is a commitment of sorts.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:23 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: MIchael Uschold <uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com >; Comment <comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

I am happy with my own proposed definition. 😊 If it’s not catching some meaning, you will have to indicate what’s missing.

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:26 PM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Fair points, the legal part is a good distinction.

This following does not quite catch the maning however: “something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation”.

Not sure how best to improve it.

M.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:50 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: MIchael Uschold <uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com%20%3cmailto:uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com >; Comment <comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The current gist definition of Agreement is—pardon me—a bit silly:

A contract or other binding agreement, usually evidenced by signature(s).

First of all, as any lawyer will tell you—and contrary to popular belief—verbal agreements can be binding, so the emphasis on a signature is odd. That sounds like a definition for a class such as WrittenAgreement—which evokes Contract, but is not Contract.

Second, how do we represent an informal, non-enforceable agreement such as an agreement to meet somewhere, if we can’t use gist:Agreement? For example: “Let’s meet at the fountain in the mall at 2:30.” I can imagine real business scenarios where we

So, I think we should alter gist to have the following definitions.

Agreement: something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation.

Contract: an Agreement which can be enforced by law

There can then be an unlimited number of subclasses of Agreements and Contracts, with the fundamental distinction regarding enforcement remaining.

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com%20%3cmailto:notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:09 PM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org%20%3cmailto:thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The question is what we want to say about a Contract that is more than just an agreement, There a zillions of kinds of contract also.

Dan, I think the answer is implicit in your own observation: “Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business”. I think therefore it deserves its own class. Also, other ontologies like FIBO have a Contract class, that having one in gist improves inter-operability.

Thanks,

Ted

Sorry for the delayed reply...

Just out of curiosity, why not have a category :AgreementType with an instance to cover Contract?

On the other hand, Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business, it probably would not create confusion to introduce the class even without a formal restriction available for it.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381647280 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4LYkwMhQqX27TAwIGbV_K8v8abT-ks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4J-aBfSUnHgXm5-_ucU29ygLBgaFks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381975049, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyR_qK-9hqxmpm9Y5q1IoUiI8fkh9ks5tpeB3gaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382460040 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4DI-UImN2FF_RsXbUJobk6M1A12tks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4F47S_y_eyeineH15Ay5LGEsDvjNks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382472608, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzybMoyajpD6xZQn7jSH6VDFoS4Edfks5tp3zZgaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382483641 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4Pt9tl-2j1DoHxWBFm-HtqXSyxFEks5tp4VHgaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4A3FYWMZKema96vLB0Owx82xyv0Uks5tp4VHgaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382713797, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyfmVjssI2ZMWjE1VotVU0hGmOJEqks5tqIGggaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382807185 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4NTf71MRFzvoCGeap2u3XE58THkxks5tqMGZgaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4EYw8SUC0isY_TF2d6nXZJ284JVpks5tqMGZgaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

uscholdm commented 6 years ago

Yes, how about ‘jointly’ or ‘mutually’ rather than cooperatively. Same meaning, shorter words…

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 6:45 AM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: MIchael Uschold uschold@gmail.com; Comment comment@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

How about:

Agreement: something which two or more SocialBeings cooperatively commit to do.

Contract: an Agreement which can be enforced by law

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold notifications@github.com Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 12:56 PM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: Ted Hills thills@acm.org; Author author@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Its stronger than intending, it is a commitment of sorts.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:23 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: MIchael Uschold <uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com >; Comment <comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

I am happy with my own proposed definition. 😊 If it’s not catching some meaning, you will have to indicate what’s missing.

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:26 PM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Fair points, the legal part is a good distinction.

This following does not quite catch the maning however: “something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation”.

Not sure how best to improve it.

M.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:50 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: MIchael Uschold <uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com%20%3cmailto:uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com >; Comment <comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The current gist definition of Agreement is—pardon me—a bit silly:

A contract or other binding agreement, usually evidenced by signature(s).

First of all, as any lawyer will tell you—and contrary to popular belief—verbal agreements can be binding, so the emphasis on a signature is odd. That sounds like a definition for a class such as WrittenAgreement—which evokes Contract, but is not Contract.

Second, how do we represent an informal, non-enforceable agreement such as an agreement to meet somewhere, if we can’t use gist:Agreement? For example: “Let’s meet at the fountain in the mall at 2:30.” I can imagine real business scenarios where we

So, I think we should alter gist to have the following definitions.

Agreement: something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation.

Contract: an Agreement which can be enforced by law

There can then be an unlimited number of subclasses of Agreements and Contracts, with the fundamental distinction regarding enforcement remaining.

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com%20%3cmailto:notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:09 PM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org%20%3cmailto:thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The question is what we want to say about a Contract that is more than just an agreement, There a zillions of kinds of contract also.

Dan, I think the answer is implicit in your own observation: “Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business”. I think therefore it deserves its own class. Also, other ontologies like FIBO have a Contract class, that having one in gist improves inter-operability.

Thanks,

Ted

Sorry for the delayed reply...

Just out of curiosity, why not have a category :AgreementType with an instance to cover Contract?

On the other hand, Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business, it probably would not create confusion to introduce the class even without a formal restriction available for it.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381647280 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4LYkwMhQqX27TAwIGbV_K8v8abT-ks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4J-aBfSUnHgXm5-_ucU29ygLBgaFks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381975049, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyR_qK-9hqxmpm9Y5q1IoUiI8fkh9ks5tpeB3gaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382460040 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4DI-UImN2FF_RsXbUJobk6M1A12tks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4F47S_y_eyeineH15Ay5LGEsDvjNks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382472608, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzybMoyajpD6xZQn7jSH6VDFoS4Edfks5tp3zZgaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382483641 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4Pt9tl-2j1DoHxWBFm-HtqXSyxFEks5tp4VHgaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4A3FYWMZKema96vLB0Owx82xyv0Uks5tp4VHgaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382713797, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyfmVjssI2ZMWjE1VotVU0hGmOJEqks5tqIGggaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382807185 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4NTf71MRFzvoCGeap2u3XE58THkxks5tqMGZgaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4EYw8SUC0isY_TF2d6nXZJ284JVpks5tqMGZgaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-383580456, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyeTwhq8mfPT32GzDLjodBtq827a0ks5trdrkgaJpZM4TFzrl.

tedhills commented 6 years ago

sure

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold notifications@github.com Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:39 PM To: semanticarts/gist gist@noreply.github.com Cc: Ted Hills thills@acm.org; Author author@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Yes, how about ‘jointly’ or ‘mutually’ rather than cooperatively. Same meaning, shorter words…

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 6:45 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: MIchael Uschold <uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com >; Comment <comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

How about:

Agreement: something which two or more SocialBeings cooperatively commit to do.

Contract: an Agreement which can be enforced by law

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 12:56 PM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Its stronger than intending, it is a commitment of sorts.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:23 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: MIchael Uschold <uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com%20%3cmailto:uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com >; Comment <comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

I am happy with my own proposed definition. 😊 If it’s not catching some meaning, you will have to indicate what’s missing.

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com%20%3cmailto:notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:26 PM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org%20%3cmailto:thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

Fair points, the legal part is a good distinction.

This following does not quite catch the maning however: “something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation”.

Not sure how best to improve it.

M.

From: Ted Hills [mailto:notifications@github.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 10:50 AM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: MIchael Uschold <uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com%20%3cmailto:uschold@gmail.com%20%3cmailto:uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com%20%3cmailto:uschold@gmail.com mailto:uschold@gmail.com >; Comment <comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:comment@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:comment@noreply.github.com mailto:comment@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The current gist definition of Agreement is—pardon me—a bit silly:

A contract or other binding agreement, usually evidenced by signature(s).

First of all, as any lawyer will tell you—and contrary to popular belief—verbal agreements can be binding, so the emphasis on a signature is odd. That sounds like a definition for a class such as WrittenAgreement—which evokes Contract, but is not Contract.

Second, how do we represent an informal, non-enforceable agreement such as an agreement to meet somewhere, if we can’t use gist:Agreement? For example: “Let’s meet at the fountain in the mall at 2:30.” I can imagine real business scenarios where we

So, I think we should alter gist to have the following definitions.

Agreement: something which two or more SocialBeings intend in cooperation.

Contract: an Agreement which can be enforced by law

There can then be an unlimited number of subclasses of Agreements and Contracts, with the fundamental distinction regarding enforcement remaining.

Thanks,

Ted

From: MIchael Uschold <notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com%20%3cmailto:notifications@github.com%20%3cmailto:notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com%20%3cmailto:notifications@github.com mailto:notifications@github.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 1:09 PM To: semanticarts/gist <gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:gist@noreply.github.com mailto:gist@noreply.github.com > Cc: Ted Hills <thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org%20%3cmailto:thills@acm.org%20%3cmailto:thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org%20%3cmailto:thills@acm.org mailto:thills@acm.org >; Author <author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:author@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com%20%3cmailto:author@noreply.github.com mailto:author@noreply.github.com > Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

The question is what we want to say about a Contract that is more than just an agreement, There a zillions of kinds of contract also.

Dan, I think the answer is implicit in your own observation: “Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business”. I think therefore it deserves its own class. Also, other ontologies like FIBO have a Contract class, that having one in gist improves inter-operability.

Thanks,

Ted

Sorry for the delayed reply...

Just out of curiosity, why not have a category :AgreementType with an instance to cover Contract?

On the other hand, Contract is such a common and fundamental concept within business, it probably would not create confusion to introduce the class even without a formal restriction available for it.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381647280 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4LYkwMhQqX27TAwIGbV_K8v8abT-ks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4J-aBfSUnHgXm5-_ucU29ygLBgaFks5tpLm2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-381975049, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyR_qK-9hqxmpm9Y5q1IoUiI8fkh9ks5tpeB3gaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382460040 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4DI-UImN2FF_RsXbUJobk6M1A12tks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4F47S_y_eyeineH15Ay5LGEsDvjNks5tp3M2gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382472608, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzybMoyajpD6xZQn7jSH6VDFoS4Edfks5tp3zZgaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382483641 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4Pt9tl-2j1DoHxWBFm-HtqXSyxFEks5tp4VHgaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4A3FYWMZKema96vLB0Owx82xyv0Uks5tp4VHgaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382713797, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyfmVjssI2ZMWjE1VotVU0hGmOJEqks5tqIGggaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-382807185 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4NTf71MRFzvoCGeap2u3XE58THkxks5tqMGZgaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4EYw8SUC0isY_TF2d6nXZJ284JVpks5tqMGZgaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-383580456, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKRzyeTwhq8mfPT32GzDLjodBtq827a0ks5trdrkgaJpZM4TFzrl.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-383641319 , or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVSf4PvYniq1U5q1Tq6X5dbOlTRlYImVks5trgO3gaJpZM4TFzrl . https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVSf4LZEok0aqLkYOahO2GYe1jvFrl05ks5trgO3gaJpZM4TFzrl.gif

mkumba commented 6 years ago

tldr

Ok with a Contract sub class (we used to have one and took it out cuz we weren't using it) . Actually looks like it moved to gistFina and it is a subtype of Agreement

tedhills commented 6 years ago

OK, here's the wrap-up on this issue.

Replace the current definition of :Agreement ("A contract or other binding agreement, usually evidenced by signature(s).") with "something which two or more SocialBeings mutually commit to do".
Add a subclass of :Agreement called :Contract, defined as "an Agreement which can be enforced by law".

mkumba commented 6 years ago

ok

Sent from Mailhttps://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986 for Windows 10

From: Ted Hills notifications@github.com Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 11:59:01 AM To: semanticarts/gist Cc: Dave McComb; Comment Subject: Re: [semanticarts/gist] gist:Contract Needed (#28)

OK, here's the wrap-up on this issue.

Replace the current definition of :Agreement ("A contract or other binding agreement, usually evidenced by signature(s).") with "something which two or more SocialBeings mutually commit to do".
Add a subclass of :Agreement called :Contract, defined as "an Agreement which can be enforced by law".

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/semanticarts/gist/issues/28#issuecomment-392135113, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABkvhDVkO5_MqyTXwKc66IAzMlfv8zoks5t2EZkgaJpZM4TFzrl.

mkumba commented 5 years ago

Done git8.2.0

uscholdm commented 5 years ago

What was done? There are piles and piles of comments above.

semanticarts / gist

gist:Contract Needed #28