Roles and Their Three Facets a Foundational Perspective

https://content.iospress.com/articles/applied-ontology/ao210244

topics: GFO DOLCE Basic Formal Ontology Unified Foundational Ontology

Abstract

Roles remain nebulous entities, notwithstanding their extensive interdisciplinary research. This paper argues through a meta-ontological conceptual tool of grounding that there are three key facets of roles: a role position, a role specification, and a role potential. A foundational perspective on roles can be specified by “role choices” as to which facet of roles is primary. Role choices are illustrated with theories of roles that are built in compliance with four well-known upper ontologies: GFO, DOLCE, Basic Formal Ontology, and Unified Foundational Ontology. The relationship between such three facets of roles and the GFO-based three kinds of roles (relational, processual, and social) is closely examined. These three facets are also comparatively studied from linguistic (e.g. ‘have a role’ versus ‘play a role’) and methodological (realism versus conceptualism regarding ontology design) perspectives. Furthermore, the family resemblance view of roles as “epistemic trackers” is proposed: the general notion of role is merely (partially) unified by its three facets and helps to keep track of some entity with respect to its role-related aspects. Finally, defining characteristics of roles in conceptual modeling are considered in terms of the three-facet theory. This work provides the grist for future practical development of an ontological module for generic role representation

Claude explication

This paper presents a foundational analysis of roles by distinguishing three core facets and examining which might be most fundamental. Let me break down each component:

Role Position: This refers to the structural location or place that a role occupies within some system or framework. Think of it as the "slot" or "node" in a network of relationships - for example, the position of "CEO" exists as a structural location in corporate hierarchies, regardless of who fills it or what specific duties it entails.

Role Specification: This encompasses the rules, norms, expectations, and requirements that define what the role involves. It's the content that specifies what someone in the role should do, how they should behave, what obligations they have, etc. For the CEO example, this would include fiduciary duties, strategic decision-making responsibilities, reporting requirements, and so forth.

Role Potential: This represents the capacity or possibility for something to occupy or fulfill a role. It's about what makes an entity capable of taking on a role - the prerequisites, qualifications, or inherent capabilities needed. For a CEO role, this might include leadership skills, business acumen, legal eligibility, and other attributes that enable someone to actually perform in that position.

Role Choices

The "role choices" refer to foundational decisions about which of these three facets should be considered primary or most fundamental in understanding what roles are. This is where the meta-ontological grounding comes in - it's asking which facet provides the foundation upon which the others depend:

Position-primary: Roles are fundamentally about structural positions, with specifications and potentials being secondary features
Specification-primary: Roles are essentially defined by their normative content and requirements, with positions and potentials following from this
Potential-primary: Roles are grounded in the capacities and possibilities of role-bearers, with positions and specifications emerging from these capabilities

Each choice represents a different foundational perspective on the nature of roles, with implications for how we understand role creation, role change, and the relationship between roles and their occupants.

The paper's contribution lies in showing how these seemingly abstract distinctions have concrete implications for how we theorize about social institutions, organizations, and normative structures more broadly.

Examples

Here are concrete examples that illustrate how different role-choice perspectives would analyze the same roles:

Position-Primary Examples

Military Ranks: A "Captain" exists as a structural position in the military hierarchy regardless of who fills it or what specific duties are assigned. The position comes first - it's a node in the chain of command that must exist for the military structure to function. The specifications (duties) and potential (qualifications) are determined by what this structural position requires.

Constitutional Offices: The role of "President" exists as a constitutional position before any specifications or qualifications. The office is created by the constitutional structure, and then duties and eligibility requirements follow from that structural necessity.

Specification-Primary Examples

Professional Roles: A "doctor" is fundamentally defined by the normative specifications - the duty to heal, medical ethics, diagnostic responsibilities, etc. The position in healthcare systems and the required qualifications (medical training) both emerge from these primary normative requirements. You could imagine different structural positions (private practice, hospital staff, military medic) all sharing the same core specification-based role.

Parental Roles: "Parent" is primarily defined by the specifications - caring for children, providing guidance, ensuring welfare. The social positions parents occupy and the qualities that make someone capable of parenting both flow from these fundamental normative requirements.

Potential-Primary Examples

Entrepreneurial Roles: An "entrepreneur" exists primarily because certain people have the potential - risk tolerance, innovation capacity, leadership ability. The specifications (what entrepreneurs do) and positions (their place in economic systems) emerge from recognizing and organizing around these pre-existing human potentials.

Athletic Roles: A "team captain" role often emerges from someone's demonstrated leadership potential. The specifications (motivating teammates, representing the team) and formal position follow from recognizing that this person has the relevant capabilities.

Contrasting the Approaches

Consider a "Teacher" role:

Position-primary: Teaching roles exist because educational institutions need certain structural positions filled. The job exists in the org chart first, then gets defined.
Specification-primary: Teaching roles exist because there are fundamental normative requirements around education - someone must impart knowledge, guide learning, assess progress. Positions and qualifications follow from these needs.
Potential-primary: Teaching roles exist because some people have natural teaching abilities - communication skills, patience, knowledge. The educational specifications and institutional positions are built around recognizing and utilizing these human potentials.

Each perspective emphasizes different aspects as foundational, leading to different implications for role design, evaluation, and change.

how do these "seemingly abstract" distinctions impact modeling of roles?

These distinctions have profound practical implications for how we model roles in various domains. Here's how each foundational choice shapes modeling approaches:

Organizational Design & Management

Position-Primary Modeling:

Creates rigid organizational charts with fixed hierarchies
Roles are designed top-down based on structural needs
Job descriptions follow from organizational architecture
Performance metrics focus on fulfilling positional requirements
Example: Traditional bureaucracies where roles like "Deputy Assistant Director" exist primarily to fill structural gaps, regardless of individual capabilities or specific tasks

Specification-Primary Modeling:

Emphasizes competency-based role definitions
Focuses on outcomes and responsibilities rather than hierarchy
Allows for flexible reporting structures if specifications are met
Performance tied to meeting normative requirements
Example: Professional services firms where "Senior Consultant" is defined by client delivery standards and expertise requirements, not organizational position

Potential-Primary Modeling:

Emphasizes talent-based organizational design
Roles evolve around individual strengths and capabilities
Flat, adaptive structures that reshape based on available talent
Performance measured by potential utilization and development
Example: Startups that create roles around founding team members' unique skills, like "Chief Happiness Officer" emerging from someone's natural ability to boost morale

Legal and Regulatory Frameworks

Position-Primary Legal Modeling:

Statutory roles with fixed authorities regardless of occupant
Clear succession rules and jurisdictional boundaries
Rights and obligations attach to positions, not persons
Example: Corporate law where "Directors" have fiduciary duties purely by virtue of holding the position

Specification-Primary Legal Modeling:

Functional definitions that can be fulfilled through various structural arrangements
Emphasis on meeting performance standards over holding specific titles
Allows regulatory flexibility in how requirements are satisfied
Example: Financial regulations requiring "qualified persons" to oversee certain functions, regardless of their formal title or position

Potential-Primary Legal Modeling:

Licensing and qualification-based systems
Individual capabilities determine role eligibility
Professional certification models
Example: Medical practice where "physician" roles are based on demonstrated competency and training rather than institutional position

Technology and AI Systems

Position-Primary AI Modeling:

Role-based access control (RBAC) systems
Fixed permission hierarchies
Workflows based on organizational structure
Example: Enterprise software where access rights are tied to job titles in HR systems

Specification-Primary AI Modeling:

Task-oriented AI that focuses on fulfilling defined functions
Goal-driven systems that adapt structure to meet specifications
Service-oriented architectures
Example: AI assistants designed around capability requirements rather than mimicking human organizational roles

Potential-Primary AI Modeling:

Capability-based systems that assign roles based on demonstrated performance
Adaptive role allocation based on system strengths
Machine learning systems that develop specialized roles through training
Example: Multi-agent AI systems where roles emerge from each agent's learned capabilities

Position-Primary Research Models:

Network analysis focusing on structural positions
Studies of role strain and role conflict based on positional demands
Institutional analysis emphasizing formal structures
Example: Research on "middle management" treating it as a structural position with inherent tensions

Specification-Primary Research Models:

Normative role theory focusing on expectations and requirements
Studies of role performance against defined standards
Analysis of how specifications create social order
Example: Research on "professional identity" examining how normative requirements shape behavior

Potential-Primary Research Models:

Individual differences approaches to role performance
Studies of role selection and self-selection processes
Analysis of how human capabilities shape role evolution
Example: Research on "person-job fit" examining how individual potentials align with role demands

Practical Modeling Implications

These foundational choices determine:

Change Management: Position-primary models resist change (structural inertia), specification-primary models change through redefinition, potential-primary models evolve with capabilities
Role Conflict Resolution: Different approaches to resolving tensions between role demands, individual abilities, and structural requirements
Performance Measurement: Whether success is measured by positional compliance, specification fulfillment, or potential realization
System Design: How roles are created, modified, and eliminated in organizational systems
Predictive Modeling: What variables are considered primary drivers of role effectiveness and evolution

The "abstract" distinctions thus become very concrete when building systems, organizations, or theories that must account for how roles actually function in practice.