imported OMRSE 'role in human social processes' is malformed; replace with appropriate term?

[jonathanvajda]

Current definition of 'role in human social processes' (OMRSE_00000024) is:

• "A role inhering in an entity realized by social interactions in human society."

I think a better definition is:

• "A role that inheres in some entity that is realized in a social act"

This reuses terms already enumerated in the ontology ('social act', IAO_0021003), and if it happens in a society (occurs in some BFO:site) that can be spelled out on the instance level rather than nebulously in the class level. The original definition implicitly requires multiple activities before inherence ('interactions').

Moreover, if 'owner role' is a subclass of 'role in human social processes', then this conceptually cuts off a scenario in which a hermit owns anything. Doesn't matter for most use cases, but it's theoretically problematic and it doesn't need to be.

Lastly, the term label could be improved: 'social act role'. Not only is this more obviously connected to the literature on social acts (e.g. Reinach and others), it also removes the plural "processes".

Proposal A: stop importing 'role in human social processes' (OMRSE_00000024), and create a new term and definition in house: 'social act role' =def 'A role that inheres in some entity that is realized in a social act'

Proposal B: same as proposal A, but also make 'social act role' a parent class of 'deontic role'

[CDowland]

You wrote:

This reuses terms already enumerated in the ontology ('social act', IAO_0021003), and if it happens in a society (occurs in some BFO:site) that can be spelled out on the instance level rather than nebulously in the class level. The original definition implicitly requires multiple activities before inherence ('interactions').

While the plural "interactions" is used, it does not specify" multiple interactions." But perhaps it could be made clearer by adding "some" or "one or more" before interactions.

More importantly, the part of the definition to which you refer is not about inherence or what is required "before inherence." It says what realizes the role, but of course that cannot be required for the role to inhere, since the role cannot be realized before it exists, and cannot exist unless it inheres in something. And of course, a role can inhere in someone without ever being realized.

You wrote:

Moreover, if 'owner role' is a subclass of 'role in human social processes', then this conceptually cuts off a scenario in which a hermit owns anything. Doesn't matter for most use cases, but it's theoretically problematic and it doesn't need to be.

I think the term concerns legal ownership, and a hermit can legally own things. The term's definition does not specify what sort of processes realize it. If you own your own home/land, is your owner role realized (a) whenever you do anything there, such as mow the lawn, or (b) only when you do things that specifically regard your ownership, such as putting the house up for sell, paying property taxes, or getting into legal disputes over property boundaries? If (a) can realize it, then perhaps 'owner role' is not indeed a role in human social processes. But if realizations are restricted to the sort of things in (b), then perhaps it is fine where it is.

Lastly, the term label could be improved: 'social act role'. Not only is this more obviously connected to the literature on social acts (e.g. Reinach and others), it also removes the plural "processes".

Is that plural a problem? The term is not plural, since "role" is singular. And a role only connected to one human social process would count as a role in human social processes, so I don't see the problem.

[CDowland]

My apologies, but I mistakenly thought this was on the OMRSE issue tracker. Some of my commentary doesn't make sense given that this is the d-acts tracker. I'll make revisions.

[jonathanvajda]

You wrote:

While the plural "interactions" is used, it does not specify" multiple interactions." But perhaps it could be made clearer by adding "some" or "one or more" before interactions.

Agreed. Any problem with my proposal?

I think the term concerns legal ownership, and a hermit can legally own things. The term's definition does not specify what sort of processes realize it. If you own your own home/land, is your owner role realized (a) whenever you do anything there, such as mow the lawn, or (b) only when you do things that specifically regard your ownership, such as putting the house up for sell, paying property taxes, or getting into legal disputes over property boundaries?

Good questions. I'd like to make headway on this topic, especially in a modular ontology focusing on ownership and buying and selling, the Ontology of Commercial Exchange that's been under development.

http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2518/paper-SOLEE7.pdf (see §4.2)
and another attempt, by my coauthor in making a CCO conformant version: https://philpapers.org/archive/MERCCC.pdf

If (a) can realize it, then perhaps 'owner role' is not indeed a role in human social processes. But if realizations are restricted to the sort of things in (b), then perhaps it is fine where it is.

I don't see how (a) and (b) differentiate whether 'owner role' belongs under 'role in human social processes' rather than my proposed changes of adding 'social act role'. If the role's realizations are restricted to (b), it still seems fitting for my proposal.

Maybe a helpful question is this: What use cases were in view for D-Acts to include OMRSE's term and what child classes would be affected (say, by an ontology importing D-Acts) if we followed my proposal?

[dillerm]

If (a) can realize it, then perhaps 'owner role' is not indeed a role in human social processes. But if realizations are restricted to the sort of things in (b), then perhaps it is fine where it is.

I don't see how (a) and (b) differentiate whether 'owner role' belongs under 'role in human social processes' rather than my proposed changes of adding 'social act role'.

I believe his comment was meant to explain how a hermit can bear an owner role without it conflicting with the definition of 'role in human social processes'. After all, a hermit would still have to interact with someone to acquire ownership of their property. In any case, it would be much easier to just strap a "realized-by some 'social act'" assertion on 'role in human social processes' than it would be to remove the import and create a new class, plus OMRSE is a more obvious fit for 'social act role'.

[mbrochhausen]

Is this something that should be discussed in the OMRSE issue tracker?

[mbrochhausen]

I am posting this issue to the OMRSE issue tracker, after consulting with the OMRSE team.

[dillerm]

@jonathanvajda , just following up to see if you've had time to think this proposal over. I added the full proposal here: mcwdsi/OMRSE#194

[CDowland]

Closing because this was moved to the OMRSE issue tracker, and because it appears the requested change was made in OMRSE.