Scope of Information Bearing Entity (ont00000253): how does a duration attach to the thing it measures?

[UtopianKnives]

Stated example

A commercial contract says a party may terminate on 180 days' written
notice. I want to express the notice period is 180 days in CCO 2.1
(versionIRI _.../2026-04-04/..._), and I want to be sure I am reading the
scope of ont00000253 correctly before I build on it.

My reading of 2.1

• The twelve value data properties — has integer value (ont00001773) and its siblings — declare domain ont00000253 Information Bearing Entity, as does uses measurement unit (ont00001863).

• ont00000253 is BFO_0000030 object, so an independent continuant: the thing that carries the information, not the information.

• The measurement content is ont00001163 Measurement ICE, a generically dependent continuant.

• BFO declares independent, specifically dependent and generically dependent continuant pairwise disjoint, so one individual cannot be both. A single individual typed Measurement ICE that also bears has integer value makes the ontology inconsistent.

• is a measurement of (ont00001966) has domain Measurement ICE, so the bearer on its own cannot connect the value to the entity measured.

Taken together that gives two individuals rather than one:

:notice-period-msmt      a owl:NamedIndividual, cco:ont00001163 ;
    cco:ont00001966      :notice-period ;              # is a measurement of
    obo:BFO_0000084      :notice-period-msmt-ibe .     # generically depends on

:notice-period-msmt-ibe  a owl:NamedIndividual, cco:ont00000253 ;
    cco:ont00001773      180 ;                         # has integer value
    cco:ont00001863      cco:ont00001571 .             # uses measurement unit Day

The questions

1. Is that the intended minimum, or is there a shorter licensed form I have missed? Two individuals per measured value is a real cost at corpus scale, and I would rather pay it knowingly than work around a misreading.

2. What is the bearer, concretely, for a value read out of a document? The contract itself is a plausible Information Bearing Entity, but then one document bears many measurements and the value properties would all hang off the same individual. Is a per-measurement bearer intended, or is the document the bearer and the disambiguation done elsewhere?

3. The 3.0 milestone lists "the refactoring of information". Does that touch the ICE / IBE split or the domain of the value properties? I am about to build against this shape and would rather build toward where it is going than have to redo it in December.

Context

I extract OWL 2 DL ontologies from documents and ground them in BFO and
CCO, validating with ELK and HermiT through ROBOT. Values are the one thing
the pipeline currently drops entirely, which is why this pattern matters to
me more than most.

Happy to contribute a worked serialization to the design-patterns directory
once I have a tested one, if that would be useful.

[UtopianKnives]

Following up on my own question 2, because I think I asked it in a weaker form than I meant.

I framed the choice as per-measurement bearer versus document bearer, as though the document were prior and the parts carved out of it. For a contract that seems backwards. The provisions are drafted separately, negotiated separately, and get lifted into other agreements intact — the document is constituted by them rather than divided into them. So the clause-level bearers are the prior things, and the document is the composite.

That resolves one worry I had — a clause inscription is then an object in its own right rather than a fiat object part, so IBE ⊑ BFO_0000030 object sits fine at that level. But it moves the problem up:

A composite of parts is an object aggregate (BFO_0000027), and ont00000253 is a subclass of object (BFO_0000030). Those are siblings under material entity, not one under the other. So can a document-level Information Bearing Entity exist at all under this reading, or does the subclass axiom mean only the clause-level parts are IBEs?

If the latter, I would like to understand the intended treatment of a document that carries many measurements. Every value assertion would then attach at the part level, with the document itself outside the IBE hierarchy — which is coherent, but means a fairly common thing ("the values in this contract") has no bearer to hang off.

There is a mereological consequence either way. If a document-level IBE can be an aggregate, has member part (BFO_0000115) looks licensed, since a contract can be exhaustively partitioned into preamble, provisions, signature block and exhibits even where only some are asserted. If it cannot, the relation between document and clause-level bearer is has continuant part (BFO_0000178) and the aggregate reading is simply unavailable.

Same stated example as above — the 180-day notice period, in a contract that also carries a royalty percentage and a warranty term.

[CarterBeauBenson]

Hi,

1. I am 95% confident that the domain of the data properties will be changed to ICE. I am also confident that the xsd typed properties (has integer value, has decimal value) will be done away with in favor of one value (has value). Has altitude value, lattitude value, and longitude value will survive as of now.
2. I am less confident, because I do not recall a conversation about it, that the domain of "uses measurement unit" will also change to ICEs. I think there may be some stuff in this are drawn from QUDT, but the specifics are fuzy to me. @johnbeve would know better.
3. For duration of a contract, we (CUBRC) have used "stasis of GDC". This was because a contract being in force does not seem act-like, and the best matching process was "stasis", of which, stasis of GDC is a subclass. Then we tie that to the temporal regions which they occur, then the ICEs that designate such temporal regions.

Carter