Minor issues with Contractor Role definition

[gregfowlerphd]

I'm working with the CCO class Contractor Role in an ontology I'm developing, and I believe there are two minor problems with its current definition:

A Role that inheres in an Agent or Group of Agents by virtue of that Agent or Group of Agents entering into a Contract to provide materials or labor to perform a service or complete a task.

The first, and less interesting, problem is that the term 'Contract' is capitalized in the definition, as CCO does with class labels, but there appears to be no class in CCO with that label. (Note: The scope note also suffers from this problem.) The second is that you can enter into all the contracts you want, but you don't bear a contractor role until you've fulfilled a contract.

Both problems seem like they could be fixed with minor changes to the definition (and the scope note).

[BrendaBraitling]

Capitalization by convention problem

@gregfowlerphd as we are working to standardize CCO, I took a quick look at capitalization and the term contract.

Most of the skos entries in CCO are careful to use lower case if the word "contract" is used. However, many of the skos statements throughout CCO are using capitalized words which are not CCO Classes.

If the capitalization is a problem within the skos, this seems to be a systemic editing problem you have discovered.

• If terms external to CCO are being used for reference, they should be defined as such.
• If Capitalization is reserved for CCO Classes, then the convention needs to be enforced.

I am not an expert but this could be a usability problem. @cameronmore