definition of Information Quality Entity

[alanruttenberg]

I think this should be defined by an equivalence class. The current axiom isn't quite right. For instance, if you have a square computer, that would satisfy the axioms for IQE, since square is a shape quality* and it inheres in a IBE.

The definition should be, IMO =def quality and concretizes some Information Content Entity
You can leave the current axiom as well, since it is still true.

The benefit of making it a defined class (i.e defined by equivalentClass) is that you might not want to subclass it directly since doing that might lead to multiple asserted superclasses, if there's a difference way that the particular IQA is classified in the ontology.

There's a time element to this. Whether something is an IQA can be time dependent. The example I've used is a swimming noodle shaped into a logo. While it's that shape its an IQA, but when the shape changes - it goes straight - it stops being an IQE.

[alanruttenberg]

We should think about whether a more general term is more appropriate. Consider a pattern that is alternating red and blue. Colors are (properly) dispositions in CCO. So do we have an information quality entity here, made only of dispositions?

The more general term would be 'information concretization entity' and it's definition would drop the quality requirement, being simply: =def concretizes some Information Content Entity

[BrendaBraitling]

I have been reading this paper to try to understand concretization in terms of BFO as a top level and CCO as a midlevel. Giacomo DeColle - Representing Cyberspace with the Basic Formal Ontology

Although your proposed change sounds simpler, I am not sure this approach makes it simpler. Perhaps there is a logic representation that is made easier by making it more direct? The quality seems to be the linchpin according to the paper. Is there a distinction between concretization and bearing in the logic statements that could save a step? Is 'relation of concretization' defined to logically require 3 parts?

De Colle, conferring with John Beverly seems to indicate that three elements are necessary when considering information.
The Information Quality Entity seems to be a quality (or disposition) of this material entity as the Information Bearing Entity. As a three part construct this quality can't just be a random quality of the Material Entity. It needs to be a quality that concretizes the Information Content Entity. The colors red, white and green may concretize a national identity on a flag. The colors need to convey information, not just be on a flag. Arranged in one manner they convey Italy, another manner Bulgaria. Changing the pattern of colors changes the information content. It links a generically dependent continuant to this Material Entity because of this quality.

The relation between the generically dependent continuant and the qualities is called a relation of concretization. The generically dependent continuant in question can only be interacted with by modifying the qualities and dispositions of a certain material entity. For example, changing the pattern of ink on a piece of paper makes it such that the pattern of ink on the piece of paper is now concretizing a different information content.

Thanks for any wisdom you can provide.