Created by: neilotte
I've noticed some confusion in the community with cco:ProcessAggregate. Some think that if they're dealing with a process that has process parts, then thinking of it as a cco:ProcessAggregate makes more sense; they neglect to see that bfo processes can have processes as parts, and so they're tempted to forgo cco's intentional act hierarchy.
The definition could be more helpful here. Right now, cco:ProcessAggregate is defined: "An Occurrent that is a collection of processes."
This doesn't distinguish it from bfo:Process, since a bfo:Process could also be an occurrent that has part some collection of processes and no other parts.
Is there an additional condition that process aggregates must fulfill that bfo processes do not?
I think a good candidate is that bfo processes can't occur on a gappy sequence of temporal regions, but process aggregates can. Adding that process aggregates MUST occur on a gappy sequence would make it disjoint with bfo process, but may not be intended.