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

[gregfowlerphd]

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]

@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.

[gregfowlerphd]

@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.

[gregfowlerphd]

@neilotte: So I've been thinking more about this. As suggested in my last comment, I think the sort of case you draw attention to might not show the modified definition I proposed to be problematic, assuming a certain sort of linking principle. That said, such a principle might be non-obvious (and perhaps not fully general), so here's an alternative that I hope adequately takes your concern into account:

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, or in which one or more of its members does so while acting in their official capacity.

Does this work, do you think?