Commitment class hierarchy

[rjyounes]

• Delete Obligation
• Redefine Commitment - use the word "promise"
• Contract: legally binding Agreement
• Keep Offer
• Keep Account - make sure balances don't have to be monetary - e.g., frequent flyer accounts

[rjyounes]

See #1166 and #1188 - are these all compatible?

[uscholdm]

See #1166 and #1188 - are these all compatible?

This is from 1188 with YES or NO for compatibility with #1221:

Proposed:

gist:Agreement
	a owl:Class ;
	rdfs:subClassOf gist:Commitment ;

NO, due to commitment necessarily being unilateral, a later decision.

• Delete class gist:Obligation YES
• Make gist:Commitment a direct subclass of gist:Intention YES

This is from 1166 with YES or NO for compatibilitywith #1221:

• Delete Obligation YES
• Redefine Commitment - use the word "promise" YES
• Contract: legally binding Agreement YES
• Keep Offer YES
• Keep Account - make sure balances don't have to be monetary - e.g., frequent flyer accounts
  NO Account still requires a financial balance; this should be a separate issue.