Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

A few concerns about the definition of ‘Government Artifact Function’ #504

Open
gregfowlerphd opened this issue Oct 20, 2024 · 2 comments
Labels
Pending This label designates issues that require further responses or action to assess.

Comments

@gregfowlerphd
Copy link
Contributor

The definition reads:

A Service Artifact Function that is realized in processes in which public policy is administered and the actions of its members are directed.

It’s not clear what the intended referent of the ‘its’ in the final clause is supposed to be. (The only preceding singular noun phrases are ‘Service Artifact Function’ and ‘public policy’, and ‘its’ doesn’t appear to refer back to either.) My guess is it’s supposed to refer to a populace (though I guess a government is also a possibility).

It’s also not clear who or what is supposed to be doing the administering or directing. Presumably it’s a government.

Finally, the definition indicates that in order for a process to realize a GAF, it must both be one in which public policy is administered and one in which the actions of “its” members are directed. But I suspect satisfying only one of these conjuncts would be sufficient for a process to realize a GAF.

With all this in mind, perhaps the definition could be modified as follows?:

A Service Artifact Function that is realized in processes in which a Government administers public policy or directs the actions of the Populace of its Domain.

(Note: I’m using ‘Domain’ here to express the notion of a Government Domain, as defined in the Agent Ontology. Should this be spelled out? That is, should ‘Domain’ be lengthened to ‘Government Domain’--or perhaps to ‘Delimiting Domain’ (the parent class of Government Domain)?)

@neilotte
Copy link
Contributor

@gregfowlerphd Good eye for the issue here.

My concern is that 'Government' may be too specific for what is intended here. Presumably a civil servant, for example, could administer policy, or a government representative, etc.

@neilotte neilotte added for 2.1 release These are changes we would like to see addressed under the 2.1 release Pending This label designates issues that require further responses or action to assess. and removed for 2.1 release These are changes we would like to see addressed under the 2.1 release labels Oct 31, 2024
@gregfowlerphd
Copy link
Contributor Author

@neilotte: Thanks, Neil. :)

You raise an interesting point. My initial inclination is to say that when a civil servant or government representative administers policy, so does the government of which they're a member. (Indeed, that seems to be mechanism by which a government does anything: by its members doing that thing.) But perhaps there are counterexamples, and I'll keep thinking about the wording.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Pending This label designates issues that require further responses or action to assess.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants