search

Occupation-Ontology / OccO

OccO: Occupation Ontology
4 stars 13 forks source link

Issues with capability and its subclasses #39

Open gregfowlerphd opened 2 months ago

gregfowlerphd commented 2 months ago

There are a number of issues with the capability class and its subclasses:

  1. “capability” def: “they are realized” should be “it is realized”
  2. “ability" def: The use of the verb “power” makes the def a bit unclear. Perhaps “to power” could be changed to something like “that can be employed in”?
  3. The defs for each of the subclasses of ability share the same problem: Each has the form “The ability to A”, but there is no such thing as the ability to A given BFO’s treatment of specifically dependent continuants. Instead, any individual’s ability to A is distinct from any other individual’s ability to A. (Note: That they have the form “The ability to A” also means that, strictly speaking, the defs aren’t Aristotelian; an Aristotelian def would start with “An ability”.) A potential fix, which I think would work for most or all of ability’s subclasses, would be to change the form of the defs to “An ability that consists in being capable of A-ing”.
  4. “inductive reasoning” def: For the reasoning to count as inductive, wouldn’t the pieces of information in question have to be particular (as opposed to general)? If so, this should be specified somehow.
  5. “response orientation” def: It’s not clear what it means to say that an ability includes a speed. Given the current form of the def (though see issue #3 above), perhaps it could be changed to something like “The ability to quickly choose between two or more movements in response to two or more different signals (lights, sounds, pictures) and start the correct response with the hand, foot, or other body part”?
  6. "skill” def: Given the defs of “skill” and “ability”, it looks like skill might be a subclass of ability--i.e., that a skill might just be an ability with certain special features (such as being learned).
  7. There’s a problem with the names of many of the subclasses of both ability and skill. The result of inserting the name of a class into a sentence of the following form should make sense:

A(n) [insert class name] is [insert class definition].

But this doesn’t work for many of the subclasses of ability and skill. To take just one example, consider the result with respect to the mathematics subclass of skill:

A mathematics is a skill realized in using mathematics to solve problems.

One way to solve this problem in this particular case, which I think might generalize to other subclasses of ability and skill, would be to change the name of the class from “mathematics” to “mathematics skill”.

gregfowlerphd commented 2 months ago

Just to be clear, in my (5), I did not mean to refer to the "make ontology IRI resolvable" issue. I meant to refer to my (3). Unfortunately, GitHub isn't allowing me to edit out the link.