Process

Local identifier: xwkont:concept:process Slug: process Editorial status: reviewed Created: 2026-07-01 Modified: 2026-07-06

Scope Note

This crosswalk compares BFO's Process, DOLCE's Process (a subtype of Stative), UFO's informal "process" notion, and SUMO's Process (sibling of Object under Physical), completing the pair started with docs/crosswalks/concepts/event.md and directly resolving that crosswalk's uncertainty-004.

The asymmetry runs in the opposite direction from event.md, and just as cleanly. There, BFO and SUMO lacked a top-level "Event" category while DOLCE and UFO had one. Here, it's the reverse: BFO and SUMO both treat Process as a genuine top-level formal category, while DOLCE nests Process one level down as a subtype of Stative (alongside State), and UFO has no distinct formal Process class at all — "process" appears in UFO/UFO-B literature only informally, for "the life of an endurant" (the sum of events that manifest an endurant's dispositions), with Event serving as UFO's actual primary perdurant category. Read together, event.md and this crosswalk show that each of the four sources picks a different primary term for the perdurant-with-duration territory: BFO picks Process, SUMO picks Process, DOLCE keeps both Process and Event as siblings one level down, and UFO picks Event alone.

Confirmation (2026-07-01), following direct primary-source verification: unlike object.md's correction (where "UFO has no Object class" turned out to be wrong), this crosswalk's claim about Process is confirmed correct after fetching and manually extracting text from UFO's actual 2021 Applied Ontology paper. The primary source is explicit that "process" is a deliberately informal label, not a distinct formal class: "there is a special perdurant (which we may call a process, in a very particular sense) that is the life of an endurant." The paper's own worked example reinforces this: its "Jogging Process" case (the maximal sum of "Jogging Event"s manifesting a jogger's disposition) is formalized in the axioms as EventType(JoggingProcess) — i.e., JoggingProcess is typed under EventType, not under any separate ProcessType. No axiom or definition anywhere in the paper introduces a class literally named Process. See Source Definitions and Uncertainty for the verified picture.

Exclusions: this crosswalk does not re-litigate Event (see event.md) and does not attempt UFO-B's disposition/manifestation theory in full.

Update (2026-07-02), ADR-0015 buildout: extended to GFO, YAMATO, TUpper, and GUM. Unlike UFO, all four new sources positively name a Process-equivalent term, so the crosswalk's central "some sources lack a distinct Process category" asymmetry is a BFO/DOLCE/SUMO/UFO-specific finding, not one that recurs among the newly added sources. GFO's Process is a genuine top-level formal category (subclass of Occurrent, explicitly owl:disjointWith Change and History) with a positive criterion ("directly in time," not reducible to a collection of time boundaries) — the closest structural match to BFO's Process of any new source. YAMATO's 2010 technical report does not subdivide its Occurrent class further in the passages reviewed; "process" there is essentially synonymous with the top-level Occurrent(Process) label already used in continuant-occurrent.md, not a distinct finer-grained class the way GFO/BFO have one. TUpper's activity (the repeatable type) is a different correspondence than event.md's activity_occurrence (a token occurrence of that type) — a type/token pair without a clean BFO:Process analog, since BFO's Process is itself a particular, not a type. GUM's own class is literally named Process, the closest terminological match of any new source, but its criterion (verb-realizability in systemic-functional grammar) is linguistic rather than temporal/metaphysical.

Epistemic note: BFO, DOLCE, UFO, and SUMO content is all now verified directly against primary sources (bfo-core.ttl, WonderWeb D18, the 2021 Applied Ontology paper, and Merge.kif, respectively). All four extractions reuse the same manual zlib-stream-decompression technique, since no PDF-text-extraction tool is otherwise available in this environment.

Labels, Alternate Labels, and Source Terminology

Role	Label or term	Source	Language	Notes
XwkOnt working label	Process	XwkOnt	en	Matches xwkont-core:Process (rdfs:subClassOf xwkont-core:Occurrent) in data/ontology/core.ttl.
Source term	Process	BFO	en	Sibling of Process Boundary under Occurrent (see event.md).
Source term	Process	DOLCE	en	Subtype of Stative, sibling of State — not a direct sibling of Event.
Source term	(none — see "life of an endurant")	UFO	en	No distinct formal Process class; confirmed 2026-07-01 by direct primary-source reading — see Scope Note.
Source term	Process	SUMO	en	Sibling of Object under Physical.
Source term	Process	GFO	en	Subclass of Occurrent; owl:disjointWith Change and History.
Source term	Occurrent(Process)	YAMATO	en	Same top-level term used for Occurrent generally in continuant-occurrent.md; no finer-grained Process subclass found in the fetched passages.
Source term	activity	TUpper	en	The repeatable type, distinct from activity_occurrence (used in event.md for a token occurrence).
Source term	Process	GUM	en	Same class as used in event.md's correspondence row 010; the literal label "Process" is the closest terminological match to this crosswalk's subject of any new source.

Source Definitions and Contextual Notes

Source	Term or identifier	Dimension	Claim type	Definition, quotation, or paraphrase	Reference	Locator	Notes
BFO	Process (BFO_0000015)	technical	direct quotation	"(Elucidation) p is a process means p is an occurrent that has some temporal proper part and for some time t, p has some material entity as participant." Examples: "An act of selling; the life of an organism; a process of sleeping; a process of cell-division; a beating of the heart; a process of meiosis; the taxiing of an aircraft; the programming of a computer."	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020	verified: bfo-core.ttl, class BFO_0000015, fetched and read directly 2026-07-01
DOLCE	Process	technical	direct quotation	"An occurrence-type is stative [or] eventive according to whether it holds of the mereological sum of two of its instances, i.e. if it is cumulative or not... Within stative occurrences, we distinguish between states [and] processes according to homeomericity: sitting is classified as a state but running is classified as a process, since there are (very short) temporal parts of a running that are not themselves runnings."	xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18	verified: WonderWeb D18 PDF, manually extracted 2026-07-01	Confirms the earlier paraphrase closely, now with the primary source's exact cumulativity/homeomericity criteria and its own worked example (sitting vs. running).
DOLCE	Process vs. State, Vendler parallel	philosophical	non-equivalence	DOLCE's four-way perdurant split (State, Process, Accomplishment, Achievement) maps cleanly onto Vendler's (1957) four Aktionsart classes (state, activity, accomplishment, achievement) — DOLCE's Process corresponding to Vendler's activity. Checked and confirmed absent (2026-07-01): D18's own 90-item bibliography, read directly, contains no citation to Vendler. This is this crosswalk's own external observation, not a connection Masolo et al. (2003) draw themselves — same finding as event.md's note-003/uncertainty-003.	xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18	verified absence: D18's reference list checked directly, 2026-07-01
UFO	"process" (informal, not a distinct class)	technical	direct quotation	"So, there is a special perdurant (which we may call a process, in a very particular sense) that is the life of an endurant, i.e., the sum of everything that is a manifestation of the dispositions inhering in that... perdurant."	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	verified: Applied Ontology 2021 PDF, manually extracted 2026-07-01	The author's own parenthetical ("which we may call a process, in a very particular sense") confirms this is a deliberately informal label, not a distinct formal category.
UFO	"Jogging Process" (worked example)	technical	direct quotation	UFO-B's worked example: "we have Jogging Event s, which are direct manifestations of the dispositions constituting a [Jogger], and Jogging Process es, which are constituted... At each situation, we have a particular type of maximal Jogging Process (termed the life of a [Jogger]) that is constituted by (exactly) the sum of Jogging Event s that are manifestations of that [Jogger]." Formalized as EventType(JoggingProcess) and EventType(JoggingEvent) — both typed under EventType, with no separate ProcessType.	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	verified: Applied Ontology 2021 PDF, manually extracted 2026-07-01	Resolves uncertainty-001: even in UFO's own most detailed "process" example, the formal axiomatization classifies JoggingProcess under EventType, confirming Process is not a distinct top-level formal category in UFO.
SUMO	Process	technical	direct quotation	"(subclass Process Physical)... The class of things that happen and have temporal parts or stages. Examples include extended events like a football match or a race, actions like Pursuing and Reading, and biological processes. The formal definition is: anything that occurs in time but is not an Object. Note that a Process may have participants 'inside' it which are Objects, such as the players in a football match."	xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001	verified: Merge.kif, documentation Process EnglishLanguage, fetched and read directly 2026-07-01	Resolves this crosswalk's original uncertainty-003 (no specific defining criterion found) — SUMO's Process is formally defined by exclusion from Object, a genuinely different criterion from BFO's temporal-proper-part-and-participant test.
GFO	Process	technical	direct quotation	"Processes are a special kind of occurrent. Processes are directly in time, they have characteristics which cannot be captured by a collection of time boundaries." Subclass of Occurrent; owl:disjointWith Change, owl:disjointWith History.	xwkont:ref:gfo	verified: modules/gfo-base.owl, class Process, fetched and read directly 2026-07-02	GFO's own text draws the same "not reducible to time-boundaries" criterion that distinguishes it from Change's instantaneous case (see event.md's GFO content) — a positive criterion, unlike DOLCE's or SUMO's which are exclusion/cumulativity-based.
YAMATO	Occurrent(Process)	technical	direct quotation	"both object(continuant) and process (occurrent) exist with equal importance in a mutually-dependent manner"; "YAMATO is based on a solid theory of objects, processes and events, and it deals with them of equal importance (Galton 2009)."	xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010	verified: YAMATO101216.pdf, Section 2.1, extracted 2026-07-02 (same passage as continuant-occurrent.md's and event.md's YAMATO content)	No finer-grained OWL class distinguishing "process-in-general" from the top-level Occurrent label was found in the fetched passages — "process" and "occurrent" are used near-interchangeably at this level of the report.
TUpper	activity	technical	direct quotation	"(activity a) is TRUE in an interpretation of TUpper if and only if a is a member of the class of activities in the universe of discourse of the interpretation."	xwkont:ref:tupper-colore	verified: TUpper-Terms.html, term activity, fetched and read directly 2026-07-02	A minimal, circular-looking informal semantics (typical of PSL's axiomatic style, where the substantive content lives in the CLIF axioms, not the English gloss) — activity is the repeatable type of which activity_occurrence (used in event.md) is a token occurrence.
GUM	Process	technical	direct quotation	"A Process is the linguistic construal of 'goings-on' or events. Processes are similar to Configurations, but factor out Participants, Circumstances, and other elements. As such, entities classified under Process can be expressed as verbs and are frequently the main verb in a clause."	xwkont:ref:gum-owl	verified: GUM-31.owl, class Process, fetched and read directly 2026-07-02 (same class as event.md's correspondence row 010)	The only new source whose class is literally named "Process" — the strongest terminological match of the four, though the underlying criterion (verb-realizability) is linguistic, not temporal/metaphysical.

Source Ontology Correspondences

Correspondence ID	Source ontology	Source term	Source identifier or IRI	Source version	Reference	Inclusion rationale
xwkont:correspondence:process:001	BFO	Process	BFO_0000015	BFO 2020	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020	Direct, top-level formal analog to XwkOnt's xwkont-core:Process.
xwkont:correspondence:process:002	DOLCE	Process	http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/DOLCE-Lite.owl#process (confirmed directly, 2026-07-01)	WonderWeb D18, 2003 (directly verified 2026-07-01)	xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18, xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl	Closest DOLCE analog, though nested one level down under Stative.
xwkont:correspondence:process:003	UFO	"life of an endurant" (informal)	not applicable — UFO's 2021 paper has no IRI scheme of its own, and this is explicitly an informal notion rather than a formal class; see continuant-occurrent.md's correspondence rows 005/006 for the gUFO caveat	Applied Ontology, 2021 (UFO-B literature)	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	Included as an exploratory analog despite not being a distinct UFO class; confirmed 2026-07-01 by direct primary-source reading — see Scope Note and Uncertainty.
xwkont:correspondence:process:004	SUMO	Process	Process (SUMO/SUO-KIF has no separate opaque identifier scheme — the term name itself is the identifier)	2001 (Niles & Pease)	xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001	Direct, top-level formal analog.
xwkont:correspondence:process:005	GFO	Process	https://w3id.org/gfo/base/Process	GFO 2024-11-18 (directly verified 2026-07-02)	xwkont:ref:gfo	Direct, top-level formal analog with a positive temporal-extension criterion; closest structural match to BFO of any new source.
xwkont:correspondence:process:006	YAMATO	Occurrent(Process)	not applicable — registration-gated OWL/Hozo download not fetched; cited by quotation, same as continuant-occurrent.md's correspondence row and event.md's row 008	2010 technical report (directly verified 2026-07-02)	xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010	Reuses the same top-level Occurrent(Process) label already established in continuant-occurrent.md; no more granular Process-specific class found.
xwkont:correspondence:process:007	TUpper	activity	not applicable — PSL/COLORE CLIF has no opaque identifier scheme; term name is the identifier	COLORE formalization (directly verified 2026-07-02)	xwkont:ref:tupper-colore	Included as an exploratory structural analog despite the type/token mismatch with BFO's particular-denoting Process.
xwkont:correspondence:process:008	GUM	Process	http://www.ontospace.uni-bremen.de/ontology/stable/GUM-3.owl#Process	GUM 3.1 (directly verified 2026-07-02)	xwkont:ref:gum-owl	Same class as event.md's correspondence row 010; the only new source with a class literally named "Process."

Semantic Comparison Notes

Note ID	Dimension	Claim type	Note	Supporting references	Confidence
note-001	technical	editorial observation	BFO and SUMO both treat Process as a genuine top-level formal category (siblings of Process Boundary and Object, respectively). DOLCE nests Process one level down as a Stative subtype. UFO has no distinct Process class at all, using Event as its general perdurant category instead — confirmed 2026-07-01 by direct primary-source reading, including UFO's own worked "Jogging Process" example, which is formally typed under EventType rather than any separate ProcessType. This is the mirror image of event.md's finding (there, BFO/SUMO lacked "Event"; here, UFO lacks "Process") — each source picks a different primary term for the same conceptual territory.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18, xwkont:ref:ufo-2021, xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001	high
note-003	technical	editorial observation	UFO's 2021 paper uses "Jogging Process" as a named, recurring term across its worked example (contrasted with "Jogging Event"), which could read as a distinct formal category on a casual pass. Close reading shows this is not the case: the paper explicitly flags "process" as an informal label ("which we may call a process, in a very particular sense"), and the accompanying axioms type the example instance as EventType(JoggingProcess), not any separate ProcessType. The term names a pattern (a maximal cumulative sum of manifestation events) applied within Event, not a new top-level class.	xwkont:ref:ufo-2021	high
note-002	philosophical	~~inference~~ checked and unconfirmed, 2026-07-01	DOLCE's four-way perdurant classification (State, Process, Accomplishment, Achievement) parallels Vendler's (1957) four-way linguistic Aktionsart classification exactly, one category per category. Direct reading of D18's own 90-item bibliography confirms no citation to Vendler exists in the primary source — this remains this crosswalk's own external observation, not something DOLCE's authors themselves draw. Same finding as event.md's note-003.	xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18	low
note-004	technical	editorial observation	Unlike UFO, all four ADR-0015 sources positively name a Process-equivalent term — this crosswalk's central "no distinct Process class" finding does not recur among the new sources. GFO's Process is the closest structural match to BFO (a genuine Occurrent subclass with a positive, non-boundary-reducible criterion). GUM's is the closest terminological match (a class literally named "Process"), though grounded in verb-realizability rather than temporal extension. YAMATO does not subdivide its top-level Occurrent(Process) label further in the passages reviewed, so its "process" content here largely restates continuant-occurrent.md's existing YAMATO finding rather than adding a new one. TUpper's activity (type) is a different correspondence from event.md's activity_occurrence (token) — a type/token pair with no single clean analog to BFO's particular-denoting Process.	xwkont:ref:gfo, xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010, xwkont:ref:tupper-colore, xwkont:ref:gum-owl	high

Mapping Assertions or Candidate Relations

Mapping ID	Subject	Relation category	Object	predicate_id	mapping_justification	Status	Confidence	Rationale	Provenance
xwkont:mapping:process:001	BFO:Process	close-match	SUMO:Process	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	Both are genuine top-level formal siblings in their respective hierarchies, both denoting physical activity/happening. Not exact-equivalence-candidate because their defining criteria differ (BFO: temporal-parts-and-participant-based; SUMO: physicality-partition-based, per continuant-occurrent.md) — a confidently-established, directly-evidenced divergence, not a sourcing gap; medium, consistent with mapping-002/mapping-003's treatment of the same kind of finding, not a medium-high hedge.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001
xwkont:mapping:process:002	BFO:Process	close-match	DOLCE:Process	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	DOLCE's Process is the closest analog but sits one level down in DOLCE's hierarchy (under Stative), unlike BFO's direct top-level placement.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18
xwkont:mapping:process:003	DOLCE:Process	close-match	SUMO:Process	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	Same rationale as mapping-001/002 combined.	xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18, xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001
xwkont:mapping:process:004	BFO:Process	unknown	UFO:"life of an endurant"	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	low-medium	UFO has no distinct Process class (confirmed 2026-07-01 by direct primary-source reading); the informal "life of an endurant" notion is a different kind of thing (a sum of manifestation events tied to a specific endurant) than BFO's general Process category. Confidence raised from low to low-medium because the non-equivalence itself is now directly confirmed rather than inferred from secondary sources — the mapping remains unknown/non-equivalent either way.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:ufo-2021
xwkont:mapping:process:005	BFO:Process	close-match	GFO:Process	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	Both are genuine, positively-defined top-level-ish formal categories under their respective occurrent branches, both explicitly grounded in temporal extension rather than exclusion or cumulativity. Not exact-equivalence-candidate because BFO's criterion (temporal-proper-part-and-participant) and GFO's (not reducible to a collection of time-boundaries) are formally different tests — a confidently-established divergence, not a sourcing gap; medium, consistent with this file's other same-territory-different-criteria mappings, not a medium-high hedge.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:gfo
xwkont:mapping:process:006	GFO:Process	close-match	SUMO:Process	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	Same rationale pattern as mapping-001/mapping-003 (BFO/SUMO, DOLCE/SUMO): both top-level-ish formal Process categories, different defining criteria (GFO: positive/temporal; SUMO: exclusion-from-Object).	xwkont:ref:gfo, xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001
xwkont:mapping:process:007	GFO:Process	close-match	DOLCE:Process	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	Same rationale pattern as mapping-002: DOLCE's Process sits one level down under Stative, GFO's sits directly under Occurrent, but both use the same term for the same conceptual territory.	xwkont:ref:gfo, xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18
xwkont:mapping:process:008	BFO:Process	close-match	YAMATO:Occurrent(Process)	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	Corrected from high (full-corpus audit, 2026-07-06): this restates continuant-occurrent.md's mapping-011 (BFO:occurrent vs. YAMATO:Occurrent, high) at this crosswalk's finer, Process-specific grain, but YAMATO's report does not itself distinguish a Process-specific class from its top-level Occurrent(Process) label — there is no independent Process-level evidence beyond the coarser Occurrent-level correspondence already confirmed elsewhere. high overstated this: it borrowed the confidence of a different, coarser-grained mapping for a claim specifically about the finer Process level, which the source material does not itself support at that level of detail. medium reflects a real but evidentially thinner correspondence at the level this mapping is actually about.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010
xwkont:mapping:process:009	BFO:Process	unknown	TUpper:activity	none	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	low	Structural analog only: activity is a repeatable type, while BFO's Process denotes particulars — a type/token mismatch, not a category-definition mismatch (contrast mapping-005/006/007, which compare like-for-like particular-denoting categories). Consistent with TUpper's unknown/low precedent throughout this buildout.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:tupper-colore
xwkont:mapping:process:010	BFO:Process	close-match	GUM:Process	skos:closeMatch	semapv:ManualMappingCuration	candidate	medium	The only new source with an identically-named class ("Process"), but GUM's criterion is linguistic (verb-realizability in systemic-functional grammar) rather than temporal/metaphysical — a terminological match without a matching definitional criterion, so capped at medium despite the label match.	xwkont:ref:bfo-2020, xwkont:ref:gum-owl

Uncertainty, Non-Equivalence, and Open Questions

Item ID	Type	Description	Impact	Follow-up
uncertainty-001	~~non-equivalence~~ resolved 2026-07-01	UFO has no distinct formal Process class; its informal "life of an endurant" notion is conceptually different from BFO/DOLCE/SUMO's Process. Confirmed directly against the UFO 2021 Applied Ontology paper: the text explicitly calls "process" an informal label, and the paper's own "Jogging Process" worked example is formally typed under EventType, not any separate ProcessType. Resolves event.md's uncertainty-004 by clarifying (not eliminating) the asymmetry: each source picks a different primary perdurant-with-duration term.	Confidence on mapping-004 raised from low to low-medium.	Resolved — no further action needed. If a dedicated UFO-B events paper (e.g., Guizzardi et al.'s conceptual-modeling-of-events work) is read in a future pass, confirm this finding is consistent there too.
uncertainty-002	~~uncertainty~~ resolved 2026-07-01, as a confirmed negative finding	note-002's stronger Vendler (1957) parallel (all four DOLCE perdurant subtypes mapping onto all four Vendler classes) is not confirmed against Masolo et al.'s own citations — D18's own bibliography, read directly, contains no citation to Vendler, same finding as event.md's uncertainty-003.	Confidence on note-002 reduced to low, now for a confirmed reason (checked absence) rather than an unchecked one.	Resolved — no further action needed. A Vendler (1957) reference record is not warranted unless a future pass needs Vendler's own paper directly, independent of any DOLCE citation.
uncertainty-003	~~uncertainty~~ resolved 2026-07-01	SUMO's formal defining criterion for Process is confirmed directly against Merge.kif: "anything that occurs in time but is not an Object." A genuinely different criterion from BFO's temporal-proper-part-and-participant test (exclusion-based vs. inclusion-based).	mapping-001/mapping-003's rationale can now cite this precisely rather than noting the criterion as unknown.	Resolved — no further action needed.
uncertainty-004	open-question	YAMATO's own OWL/Hozo files were not fetched in this pass (registration-gated download; see xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010), so correspondence-006/mapping-008 are cited by quotation from the 2010 technical report, not by class IRI, and it remains unconfirmed whether a later or more detailed YAMATO source (the gated OWL, or the blocked 2022 paper) subdivides Occurrent/Process further the way GFO does.	mapping-008's high confidence rests on the same evidence already used in continuant-occurrent.md, not new finer-grained evidence.	Fetch YAMATO's OWL/Hozo files if the registration gate is completed later.
uncertainty-005	non-equivalence	TUpper's activity/activity_occurrence type/token pair has no single clean analog to BFO's Process, which denotes particulars directly (not a type with instances in TUpper's sense). mapping-009 treats activity as the closer-by-convention correspondence, but this is a judgment call, not a settled equivalence — a case could also be made for activity_occurrence (already used for Event in event.md) depending on how strictly "Process" is read as type vs. token in a given downstream use.	Confidence on mapping-009 is capped at low partly for this reason, not only the type/token mismatch itself.	No further action needed unless a future pass wants to formally resolve which TUpper term is the "correct" Process correspondence.

Provenance and References

• xwkont:ref:bfo-2020 — Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) 2020 / ISO/IEC 21838-2:2021 — verified directly against bfo-core.ttl, 2026-07-01
• xwkont:ref:dolce-wonderweb-d18 — WonderWeb Deliverable D18: Ontology Library (Masolo et al., 2003) — verified directly (manual PDF extraction, including a direct check of the bibliography for a Vendler 1957 citation), 2026-07-01
• xwkont:ref:dolce-lite-owl — DOLCE-Lite OWL translation — verified directly (fetched as plain-text RDF/XML), 2026-07-01; supplies the exact process class IRI
• xwkont:ref:ufo-2021 — UFO: Unified Foundational Ontology (Guizzardi et al., 2021) — verified directly against the paper's PDF text (manually extracted), 2026-07-01
• xwkont:ref:sumo-niles-pease-2001 — Towards a Standard Upper Ontology (Niles & Pease, 2001) — verified directly against current SUMO Merge.kif, 2026-07-01
• xwkont:ref:gfo — General Formal Ontology (GFO) — verified directly against modules/gfo-base.owl (Process), 2026-07-02
• xwkont:ref:yamato-mizoguchi-2010 — YAMATO 2010 technical report (Mizoguchi) — verified directly (PDF extraction, Section 2.1), 2026-07-02
• xwkont:ref:tupper-colore — TUpper COLORE formalization (Grüninger) — verified directly against TUpper-Terms.html (activity), 2026-07-02
• xwkont:ref:gum-owl — GUM 3.1 OWL (Bateman) — verified directly against GUM-31.owl (Process), 2026-07-02

Review History

Review ID	Date	Outcome	Notes
xwkont:review:process:2026-07-01:01	2026-07-01	Passed — advanced draft → reviewed	Checked against docs/governance/contributing.md's Review Checklist: scope preserved; BFO/DOLCE/UFO/SUMO content all verified directly, including confirming (not overturning) UFO's "no distinct Process class" claim and a confirmed-absent Vendler (1957) citation check; mapping categories/confidence valid (mapping-004's low-medium value now compliant with ADR-0013); every xwkont:ref:* citation resolves. No undisclosed gaps found. Self-review, not independent third-party review.
—	2026-07-02	Not yet reviewed — status reverted reviewed → candidate	ADR-0015 buildout added GFO/YAMATO/TUpper/GUM correspondences (005-008), mappings (005-010), a new note (004), and two new uncertainty items (004-005). All four sources' content directly verified against already-fetched primary artifacts (modules/gfo-base.owl, YAMATO101216.pdf, TUpper-Terms.html, GUM-31.owl); no re-fetching needed. Pending maintainer review before advancing back to reviewed.
xwkont:review:process:2026-07-02:02	2026-07-02	Passed — advanced candidate → reviewed	Consolidated review pass, per docs/governance/contributing.md's Review Checklist, of the ADR-0015 buildout content across all 8 concept crosswalks. Checked: scope preserved; every xwkont:ref:* citation resolves; correspondence/mapping/note/uncertainty ID numbering sequential with no gaps or duplicates. Correction (2026-07-06, full-corpus audit): this entry originally claimed "the medium-high mapping here states a sourcing-driven reason" — false for mapping-001 and mapping-005, both of which used medium-high with substantive "formally different criteria" rationales, not a sourcing-change justification (fixed to plain medium in this pass, matching this file's own established treatment of the same kind of finding in mapping-002/003/006/007). Separately, mapping-008 used high confidence for a Process-specific BFO/YAMATO claim that the cited source material only supports at the coarser Occurrent level (fixed to medium). See docs/methodology/crosswalk-runbook.md's governing principle. Spot-checked GFO's Process quotation against the fetched artifact and found no transcription errors. Self-review performed at the maintainer's explicit request, not independent third-party review.

Future Work

• ~~Read UFO-B literature directly to confirm no distinct Process class exists anywhere in UFO~~ — done 2026-07-01, uncertainty-001 resolved: the 2021 Applied Ontology paper explicitly calls "process" an informal label, and its own "Jogging Process" worked example is formally typed under EventType.
• ~~Read the primary DOLCE paper's citations directly for the Vendler (1957) connection~~ — done 2026-07-01, uncertainty-002 resolved: no Vendler citation exists in D18's bibliography.
• ~~Read SUMO's current Merge.kif directly~~ — done 2026-07-01, uncertainty-003 resolved.
• ~~Extend GFO/YAMATO/TUpper/GUM correspondences to this crosswalk~~ — done 2026-07-02 (ADR-0015 buildout, 4 of 8 crosswalks). Pending maintainer review (uncertainty-004/uncertainty-005 remain open).
• Fetch YAMATO's OWL/Hozo files if the registration gate is completed, to check whether a finer-grained Process-specific class exists beyond the top-level Occurrent(Process) label (uncertainty-004).