alanruttenberg
commented
7 years ago Just a note for any others who are monitoring this ticket: We have agreed that something is broken in IAO, and there is an ongoing discussion of the relation of concretization, of what it's range is, and of the fact that in the case of a plan specification there may be (realizations of) concretizations of parts, which in toto realize the plan, even if there is no single entity that bears a disposition realized as the complete plan.
The discussion of range has centered around two issues, on the narrow side whether the range is only quality or includes other specific dependents (such as realizables, which IAO asserts), and on the broad side whether information content entity should be understood to existentially depend not only on continuants, but on processes (such as a radio wave moving through space) as well.
IAO tried to be silent on the question of what the subtype of realizable entity was, with the idea that the realizable hierarchy as it exists now does not exhaust the types of realizable entity, and that the type of the realizable entity might be eventually understood as some other type of realizable. However OBI does define plan as a realizable, sibling to the others.
To the extent that concretization relation's range is a specific dependent, the entity which it inheres in would be that which is in a position to be participant in the realization. The exemplars would be people (or more broadly sentients) as well as computers which can interpret a plan specification and take autonomous action based on it. I realize that it might be nice to have more specific criteria for the bearer. As a practical matter it would be good to know whether knowing this affects a specific problem in reasoning or application.
delenius
I am trying to connect a grant (OBI_0001636, a subclass of plan specification) to the research process described in the grant. I have a question about how to connect a plan specification to a process.
After reading https://code.google.com/archive/p/information-artifact-ontology/issues/166, I see that the recommended way to do this is using 'concretized as' and 'realized in'. However, I still have some outstanding questions.
Following this recommendation, I get this far: grant 'is concretized as' some ('realizable entity' and 'realized in' some process) The question I have is, what kind of realizable entity concretizes a plan specification and is realized in some process? Is it a role? A disposition? What does it inhere in? I suppose I'm having a difficult time working out what this realizable entity is.