In #114 @mark-jensen mentions the term part role. That sounds kind of fishy. I read the definition and I don't see why it would be considered a role. I had a look at the definition source and also didn't see an indication that this should be considered a role.
"A Role that inheres in an entity in virtue of it being part of some other entity without being subject to further subdivision or disassembly without destruction of its designated use"
"designated use" suggests there's a role in the vicinity but, as we're talking about hardware, it seems more like a function (something designed) that is important.
What seems to be involved:
- A specific dependency of a function or role of the system on a function of the part in question.
- A property of the part that any disassembly (even, for instance, losing one of several fastening screws) results in loss of function.
Actually, the specific dependence might be wrong if we are envisioning scenarios in which a part can be replaced. In that case the condition is more like the system has a part with a certain type of function, and the dependence is that there is some part that bears an instance of the function. This is a kind of generic dependence but not the same kind a GDC dependence.
I'm not clear on what the subdivision condition means. As a test, I'll take as an example something like an image sensor which has a tiny microcontroller integrated into the same silicon. Then a replacement with subdivision could mean something like replacing it with a discrete sensor and microcontroller (the two subdivisions). But in that case, since function is preserved it's hard to see why that would be a problem.
There's also the issue of it being a potentially confusing name. The BFO2 reference says:
Note that the first clause in the above [definition] ensures that parts of wholes (for example your heart, which is a part of you) do not s-depend on the wholes of which they are parts.
The requirement that the domain of s-depends is a specifically dependent continuant rules both of those out, but the fact that Barry thought to address this anyways suggests the potential for confusion.
I may be completely off base in which case you can relabel this issue as the term needing better documentation.
In #114 @mark-jensen mentions the term part role. That sounds kind of fishy. I read the definition and I don't see why it would be considered a role. I had a look at the definition source and also didn't see an indication that this should be considered a role.
"designated use" suggests there's a role in the vicinity but, as we're talking about hardware, it seems more like a function (something designed) that is important.
What seems to be involved:
Actually, the specific dependence might be wrong if we are envisioning scenarios in which a part can be replaced. In that case the condition is more like the system has a part with a certain type of function, and the dependence is that there is some part that bears an instance of the function. This is a kind of generic dependence but not the same kind a GDC dependence.
I'm not clear on what the subdivision condition means. As a test, I'll take as an example something like an image sensor which has a tiny microcontroller integrated into the same silicon. Then a replacement with subdivision could mean something like replacing it with a discrete sensor and microcontroller (the two subdivisions). But in that case, since function is preserved it's hard to see why that would be a problem.
There's also the issue of it being a potentially confusing name. The BFO2 reference says:
The requirement that the domain of s-depends is a specifically dependent continuant rules both of those out, but the fact that Barry thought to address this anyways suggests the potential for confusion.
I may be completely off base in which case you can relabel this issue as the term needing better documentation.