-The class Homo sapiens is currently asserted to be a daughter class of material entity and a sibling class of object. However, shouldn’t it instead be a daughter class of object? After all, it seems like all of its instances are BFO objects. Moreover, organism is one of the examples of usage given for object, and all instances of Homo sapiens would seem to be instances of organism.
-There are a few issues with the definition of “occupation holder”. First, the same two sentences are repeated in the definition. Second, the second of these two sentences begins with “To fulfill such an occupation...”, but the definition contains no earlier mention of an occupation, so it isn’t clear what “such an occupation” refers to. Third, strictly speaking, the definition isn’t Aristotelian, because it doesn’t start with “A(n) [insert name of parent class here]”. To address these issues, I would suggest changing the definition to something like:
A Homo sapiens who has an occupation, which is a role in society that is realized in an occupation process or an activity as a livelihood (i.e., “means of support or subsistence”). To fulfill such an occupation, the occupation holder is required to have necessary capabilities including skill(s) and abilities.
OR
A human who has an occupation, which is a role in society that is realized in an occupation process or an activity as a livelihood (i.e., “means of support or subsistence”). To fulfill such an occupation, the occupation holder is required to have necessary capabilities including skill(s) and abilities.
(If the second option is taken, the name of the parent class should be changed from “Homo sapiens” to “human”.)
-The class Homo sapiens is currently asserted to be a daughter class of material entity and a sibling class of object. However, shouldn’t it instead be a daughter class of object? After all, it seems like all of its instances are BFO objects. Moreover, organism is one of the examples of usage given for object, and all instances of Homo sapiens would seem to be instances of organism.
-There are a few issues with the definition of “occupation holder”. First, the same two sentences are repeated in the definition. Second, the second of these two sentences begins with “To fulfill such an occupation...”, but the definition contains no earlier mention of an occupation, so it isn’t clear what “such an occupation” refers to. Third, strictly speaking, the definition isn’t Aristotelian, because it doesn’t start with “A(n) [insert name of parent class here]”. To address these issues, I would suggest changing the definition to something like:
OR
(If the second option is taken, the name of the parent class should be changed from “Homo sapiens” to “human”.)