Color, Eye Color, and Hair Color

[Finn1928]

Color is currently treated as a disposition rather than a Quality. However, Eye Color and Hair Color are still types of Quality. There's also 'Skin Type', which is also treated as a Quality and is defined as being 'by virtue of its color and natural tendency to respond to ultraviolet light'. If color is a disposition, I think all of these would be dispositions. If a color is a disposition of an object to reflect certain light wavelengths and absorb others, presumably an eye color is the disposition of an eye to reflect certain light wavelengths and absorb others. So long as color is treated as a disposition, I think these qualities should instead be dispositions.

[alanruttenberg]

Agreed.
Further, they should be defined classes (equivalentclasses) Color and inheres in Eye, Color and inheres in Hair, etc. Add the anatomical terms if not present.

[BrendaBraitling]

I am still new to ontological thinking, but these look like information artifacts used in data and reporting systems that handle instances. I am noticing the capital letters...

These do not seem to be general descriptions like color of hair or color of eye. As information, they probably require a controlled list of values as used in an information system. The list may vary according to domain, but they seem to be human identifying features.

1. Do information artifacts require qualities for concretization? If so, it seems essential to keep Information Artifact Ontology items clearly identified as CCO merges.
2. If these descriptions are intended to satisfy identifying characteristics of a specific Person, I would think they should be in a Person Ontology extension to the central core of CCO, like Cyber is an extension.
3. Would color of hair, color of skin, color of eye then be ontologically appropriate as dispositions? (Skin Type as a term seems truly vague and might be more than coloration from UV... like dry, oily, chapped, ruddy, flushed, sweaty, shiny, sagging, wrinkled...)

[Finn1928]

I think the intention with these classes is to model the colors that exist in the real-world rather than information about these colors. And I don't think there's anything currently requiring there be qualities to concretize information.

I share your concerns with Skin Type. Skin can vary in more ways than just color, so it's strange for the definition to be limited to just color. It might be better for it to be relabeled as 'Skin Color' if this is all it's supposed to represent.

[oliviahobai]

I noticed these issues, too. A reclassification of color in the CCO is a good idea, as is a redefinition of "Skin Type". Converting to discussion to build consensus before anyone writes out a PR to develop