Ontological difficulty with having vs. playing role

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The distinction between having vs. playing a role is ontologically problematic. 
 Although a passenger flying a plane in an emergency may not have a "FAA 
Licensed Commercial Aviator" role, he/she does have the pilot role in flying 
the plane.  If the flight attendants, other passengers, etc. agree on a 
particular passenger as most qualified to take over the plane, then that 
passenger is socially ascribed the role of pilot.

If the advocates of the distinction could represent with axioms the situation 
of playing a role they might do justice to their case.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by hoga...@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2013 at 8:55

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Your explanation seems to suggest that you have perceived the distinction 
correctly, undermining the suggestion that there is a difficulty.  There are 
two role types, as you mention, and of the three situations you have correctly 
indicated the two situations in which the respective role is realized.

If there is an ontological confusion, it would be use of the term "playing a 
role", which has no status in BFO. The correct term is "realizing a role". 

It is true (and you have correctly stated) that process instances that seem 
similar in types are not necessarily of the same type. Your example shows this 
in that the unsanctioned pilot flying is of a different type as opposed to the 
case where the passenger, after being approved for the task, flying, at least 
insofar as the latter of a type in which a role is realized. 

Perhaps you think others would be confused by something you understand well? 

In any case, some further elaboration of what you see as the issue would be 
helpful.

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

OK. You are correct.  The language "playing a role" is confusing, and
we suggest its removal or change to "realizing a role".  The passenger
cannot play, but not have, a role of pilot.

Not sure what is the third situation where you imply no role is realized.

Original comment by hoga...@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Third situation is the case where a passenger rushes to take over piloting 
while the rest of the passengers and nurses are still confused. In that case 
there is no social process in which the role is conferred.

If the reference has the phrase "playing a role" I agree that it should be 
removed. If you can start another issue saying where it is said (even once) 
that would be a help.

Let me know if the issue of ontological confusion can be closed in favor of an 
issue asking the wording to be changed. I hadn't caught that the reference said 
that.

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:31

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I am not sure whether a new thread is needed (Alan: if you insist I can create 
a new one.
Role playing is mentioned on page 58 of the Reference Document.

The third scenario raises the question of whether the fact that the person is 
not held up or discourage by surrounding people merits to say that there is at 
least no immediate objection to his/her seizing the role.

Anyway, we agree no role playing in the Reference Document!

Original comment by MBrochhausen@gmail.com on 11 Jan 2013 at 9:44