Conversation
neilotte
left a comment
neilotte
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@cameronmore It appears 'the label for 'Action Permission' was not updated.
|
@cameronmore The definitions of permits, prohibits, requires, and their inverses still reference regulating the involvement of an agent in each process, which means these definitions still are describing acts rather than processes per se. I recommend this language also be removed so that, for instance, mere processes not obviously involving agents as causal actors (e.g. the states of affairs of a cyber system) may be prohibited, permitted, and required. |
| rdfs:range cco:ActionRegulation ; | ||
| cco:definition "y is_permitted_by x at t iff: x is an instance of Action Regulation at time t, and y is an instance of Act at time t, and x prescribes that some agent may be agent in y."@en ; | ||
| cco:definition "y is_permitted_by x at t iff: x is an instance of Process Regulation at time t, and y is an instance of Process at time t, and x prescribes that some independent continuant (but not spatial regiom) may participate in y."@en ; | ||
| cco:is_curated_in_ontology <http://www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/Mid/ModalRelationOntology> ; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@cameronmore 'region' has a mispelling.
Also, what do you think of: "y is_permitted_by x at t iff: x is an instance of Process Regulation at time t, and y is an instance of Process at time t, and x prescribes that y may occur."
If acceptable, this phrasing would apply to multiple object properties in this PR.
|
@cameronmore MRO is built automatically as part of the release process. There is no need to make changes manually, unless you can guarantee that every change to any property in CCO from v1.5 to v1.6 is accounted for. |
johnbeve
deleted the
178-inexact-owlequivalentclass-for-action-prohibition-action-permission-action-requirement
branch
4 participants
No description provided.