Ontological difficulty with having vs. playing role
Opened this issue · 4 comments
From hoga...@gmail.com on January 11, 2013 15:55:35
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: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=138
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on January 11, 2013 13:05:43
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.
From hoga...@gmail.com on January 11, 2013 13:11:03
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.
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on January 11, 2013 13:31:46
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.
From MBrochhausen@gmail.com on January 11, 2013 13:44:37
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!