Act, "plays a causitive role", and some other issues with acts

[alanruttenberg]

The definition of Act is

A Process in which at least one Agent plays a causative role.

This reads as if the agent participates in the Act. But consider an act of measuring, where the measurement is made by a camera that is triggered by motion. In such a case the agent that is causally related is e.g. the person who set up the camera. However that person is not a participant in the act of measuring.

Or consider unintended consequences of an Agent's action. A dam bursts because the designer made a calculation mistake that led to the dam being structurally unsound. The designer plays a causitive role, but it would be unexpected that the dam bursting being considered an act.

Suggest ether:
Clarify what is meant by an agent "playing" a causitive role in a process. Or possibly change the definition to something less committed like

A process that is, at least in part, the consequence of an agent's actions and is intended by an agent

Rationale: The intended part is needed because there can be unintended consequences of an agent's action. For instance, a change in water policy causes an unintended landslide. The definition allows for two agents being involved, for instance a subordinate whose action leads to the act, but where they aren't told the consequence (and so can't intend it) but where the supervisor intends the act.

But if the intention in defining Act this way is that indeed, the agent with a causative role does participate, then there are problems with, at least, act of measuring, with the example being the image taking triggered by motion would not then be an act which means there is a need for another class of measuring processes that are not acts. Similar situation for act of manufacturing - person sets up the machinery but doesn't participate when things are made. Or an act of communication that happens when a vacation autoreply is sent.

But again, if the intention is that my proposed counterexamples in the previous paragraph are intended to be excluded I really there needs to be a note to that effect.

---

Act of Encounter:

An Act of Association wherein two or more Persons meet in a casual or unplanned manner.

If it's unplanned then it's not a planned process.

---

Criminal Act would seem to be a subclass of Legal System Act, if defined as the definitions say. In an addition I expect there are other Acts would be subclass of Legal System Act, since they "they are performed by an Agent that realizes their role within the context of a legal system of some jurisdiction."

BTW, which role?

I think maybe Legal System Act might have been intended to be more specific, to handle cases where administration of laws are involved like being a prosecutor in a trial, being a congressman or aid drafting proposed laws, or police action to arrest someone on the basis of some law.

If I'm correct about what was intended, then some crafting of the definition needs to be done to make that clear.

---

Act of Religious Group Affiliation

An Act of Association wherein some Person belongs to some Religious Demonination[sic] or sub-Denomination.

Act of Social Group Membership

An Act of Association wherein a Person belongs to some Social Group.

These sound like they are Stases of Roles.

---

I think a careful review of the Act hierarchy should be done to ensure that the definitions adhere to their superclass definitions, and checking that there aren't subclasses implied by definition, but not by explicit axiom. One heuristic is to double check any definition that is sourced by Wordnet, since Wordnet is not an ontology, even if it is suggestive of one.