Recommendations how to best fill up ontological gaps between concepts/relations from a use case and GFO?

[k00ni]

This is a side question related to #45

When creating a new ontology for a use case, one basically uses the GFO and builds relevant/appropriate concepts/relations upon GFO pendants (e.g. gfo:MaterialObject). During this process new concepts/relations are introduced and put in relation to more general ones (which are from the use case or the top level ontology).

What if a use case implies very complex concepts such as a "living being" or a "machine" which don't have an appropriate parent concept/relation in the GFO?

If there is none available in the GFO, I would intuitively search for an ontology or ontology pattern which provides what I need or something similar. But if there is none, is there anything the GFO (or one of its theories behind) suggests/recommend to do/use to bridge this "ontological gap"? In the following a small illustration of what I mean:

                              ___
[ Person ]                       \
     ||  |\                      |
     ||   `--- [ Concept 2 ]     | -- Use Case related
     \/                          |
[ Living Being ]              ___/
     ||                      
     ||
     \/
 /°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°\
|                              |
|    ???????????????????       |
|    "Ontological Gap"         |
|    ???????????????????       |
|                              |
 \____________________________/
     ||
     ||
     \/                     ___
[ MaterialObject ]             \
     ||                        |
     ||                        |
     \/                        |
[ MaterialContinuant ]         | -- GFO
     ||                        |
     ||                        |
     \/                     __/
    [ GFO concepts etc. ]

Is it reasonable to create some kind of "proxy" concepts which bridge the gap between GFO and my use case? A proxy concept is more or less a concept, which at least references all relevant GFO concepts but provides enough stability to use it as a basement for further concepts. When I stick with the example, a "LivingBeing" is at least something which consists of material. So gfo:MaterialObject might be one of the upper concepts of "LivingBeing". Its life span can be modeled using gfo:Chronoid (because it has a start and end). So on and on.

I mentioned above that I could use an ontology (pattern) if available. In case there is something available to use, the task remains to integrate it into the GFO to be compatible. I assume I can't just "throw" an ontology pattern in my use case related ontology and expect it to be compatible on its own, just because the terminology fits.