Has anyone here represented a “company” (as in a business entity) under the BFO? Where did you place it? Right now I’m leaning towards a home under “generically dependent continuant”. What do you think/are there browsable ontologies out there where this has already been done?
Check out https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/10/14/nist-ai-rfi-cubrc_inc_004.pdf (“common core ontologies”) for a set of “mid-level” ontologies that extend BFO. In particular, the Agent ontology therein defined a cco:CommercialOrganization.
Looks like that ontology places commercial orgs under “object aggregate”, which falls under “material entity” (and ultimately under “independent continuant”. That seems a bit odd to me - particularly the “material entity” part, and also the fact that it implies that companies (business entities) have no existence independent of their members. I guess this is an area of some debate though, and it’s good to have this example.
if a stock price falls in the forest, and no shareholder is around to panic, does it have any impact? 😜
Found this - sounds like BFO maintainers decided against recommending that organizations, let alone companies, should fall under “object aggregate”: https://github.com/BFO-ontology/BFO-2020/issues/19
The fact that the BFO maintainers are so recently (in its history) debating something so basic as representing an organization is a big red flag for me regarding BFO as a whole. You have my sympathy if you're required to use it.
Pete R. makes a valid point. More than that, as I've been trying to communicate for years, the reader and novice needs to understand that those ontologies are based on philosophical (or other) assumptions and metaphysical claims about the nature of the world (e.g. eliminativist materialism, etc.). As a student of these things, I can get into details, but suffice it to say, those worldviews propagate (or will propagate) to more specific characterizations of things (e.g., companies). Even if not, at this degree of generality and abstractness, yet (ironically) while trying to be specific in constraints and formal semantics, one will inevitably run into conflict and encounter the perhaps unlimited modeling possibility which is due to both the high abstractness and open-ended questions and answers at that degree of generality. And one should be warry about what worldview, classification, definition, and characterization you are agreeing to in using such ontologies. These are some of the risks in using some of the most abstract/broad ontologies. If doing so, then for fairness, be aware of other ontologies such as Cyc, GFO, UFO, DOLCE, YAMATO, etc. In any case, using or creating such highly abstract upper ontologies is not strictly needed. But if that is the route ones goes on, then I recommend creating your own to suite your specific needs and avoid those sorts of risks and mischaracterizations and complexities, such as pidgeon-holing your concepts or your own beliefs under the classification pardigm and worldview of another. FYI: this happens to be one of my specialty areas, aside from some discipline-specific modeling, and aside from methodological, ethical, and governance areas. [Ontologist & conceptual modeler actively seeking work and PhD study opportunities worldwide. Authorized to work in multiple locations. Direct here at this link. Available for consulting, tutoring, coauthoring]
