Act of Military Service should not be a subclass of Act of Employment

[swartik]

The definition of cco:ont00001226 (Act of Employment) is:

An Act of Association wherein an Organization assigns a set of activities to some Person to be performed in exchange for financial compensation.

The definition of cco:ont00000308 (Act of Military Service) is:

An Act of Employment wherein a Person serves as a member of a Military Force, whether voluntarily or by conscription.

A Person serving by conscription does not perform activities in exchange for financial compensation. Many who volunteer to serve do so more out of a sense of duty to their country than in expectation of financial compensation.

[ianknowland]

Two quick thoughts:

1. A person's internal reasoning for volunteering to serve shouldn't factor in here, because at the end of the day, when you volunteer for military service in virtually any country, you are still being paid, put up in some sort of shelter, given food, etc. There is some exchange of financial value. If there are examples to the contrary then I'd be curious to see those.

2. Conscription is arguably a form of employment for the reasons above--servicemembers are still compensated for their work, even if the service is compulsory. Just because they're drafted doesn't mean they aren't paid for their service, which I think keeps it in the realm of employment.

[mark-jensen]

Clearly the decision here depends on what is meant by 'financial compensation'.

'Financial Value'[ont00000608]
has def: "A quality that inheres in an independent continuant to the degree that that independent continuant can serve as a medium of exchange in an economic system at a particular time."

Can food, equipment, medical, shelter, e.g., what a conscript minimally might receive for service, serve as a medium of exchange?

[BrendaBraitling]

Just a thought. Please advise if it is not a useful approach.

These terms seem to be tethering financial value to quite a number of Acts -- Perhaps an Act of Financial Compensation should stand on its own. It seems to be just one of several acts that I would associate with a social contract or social agreement. One party in the social agreement would carry out an Act of Financial Compensation to the other.

If we are not able to logically structure a separate Act of Financial Compensation -linked by a social contract to - an Act of Labor, for ontological purposes, then perhaps only the Act of Labor should have financial compensation written in.

This brings me to why I think that an Act of Military Service is not a subclass of Act of Employment....

I see Act of Labor as triggering compensation (for product produced or services rendered), Types of Acts of Labor would include an Act of Employment (directed activities) ,Act of Contracting (self directed activities), Act of Volunteering (no expectation of compensation for labor, or products, but possible compensation for expense). Act of Military Service seems primarily concerned with the social contract between a person and the Military Organization.

Act of Military Service could be associated with Act of Military Conscription, Act of Military Enlistment, Act of Military Commission. Act of Military Combat Service, Act of Military Separation, Act of Military Retirement. These are all acts related to the social contract between the Person and the Military Organization which convey special social meaning - rather than only being concerned with immediate financial compensation. An Act of Labor is what triggers the payroll department of any organization to provide financial compensation. Why would we complicate this for a military organization or government organization?

Would it be possible for a social contract to stipulate conditions for an Act of Financial Compensation? For example, under a contract, an Act of Military Service of a specified duration, may provide an added benefit for time-in-service to a servicemember's 'base pay' compensating their Act of Labor. This pattern of contract, conditions and Act of Financial Compensation seems to hold for an Insurance company paying on a claim which uses the conditions of this instance against a contract... or a Contractor earning a bonus for early completion... This might solve problems of pay-for-performance.

Or does this pattern not work for ontological logics at all? IN any case, I often need to segregate financial, health or personal data from other data and having financial terms embedded in these social contract Acts is troubling to me.