Open jonathanvajda opened 1 year ago
Seems like a good thing to fix, I would rather opt for adding 'Military Force' as an alternative label for MilitaryPersonnelForce, as people often speak about Forces in such a way.
@cameronmore There is too much work to be done here on the definitions for 'armed force' and its subs. Adding this alt label doesn't help. Closing the PR until improvements are made
An attempt is made to distinguish paramilitary from military, but it is done badly.
from def for 'paramilitary force': "...similar to those of a professional Military [note cap, but no 'military' class exists in CCO], as which is not included as part of a Government's formal Armed Forces"
Yet, 'paramilitary force' is a type of 'armed force' as is 'military personnel farce', so, well, that's just wrong.
From Military wiki:
In broad usage, the terms "armed forces" and "military" are often synonymous, although in technical usage a distinction is sometimes made in which a country's armed forces may include other paramilitary forces such as armed police.
So, the def's use of 'formal' is doing all the work really. But, it doesn't help one understand what the underlying distinction may be.
In the Event Ontology, the following terms refer to a Military Force, but there is no such term precisely:
The closest relevant term is cco:MilitaryPersonnelForce. My guess, is that 'MilitaryForce' was original and ambiguous, but when it was disambiguated the other references weren't updated? Whatever the cause, it seems that the definitions for the above (bulleted terms) could get some adjustments.
I suggest the following changes (bold are additions):
Alternatively, give 'Military Force' as an alternative_label for MilitaryPersonnelForce?