W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > June 2007

FW: Wiki Page: Clarification of BFO Process Definition using a wide variety of use cases

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 09:33:29 -0400
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D124428689@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Eric K. Neumann" <eneumann@teranode.com>, "Hongsermeier, Tonya M.,M.D." <THONGSERMEIER@PARTNERS.ORG>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
Cc: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>


I have started a wiki page on clarify the notion of "Process" using examples
from various domains. 

Seems like there is an interest from various participants (OBO lists, BFO
Discussion, etc.) to start a wiki page to explore this topic.

I think HCLSIG can provide guidance/recommendations on ways of using BFO
constructs and input from other communities would be crucial for this.

Was wondering if the wiki page:

http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/OntologyTaskForce/BFOProcessDefinitionDiscussion

could be opened for editing by the public at large and what the W3C policies are
regarding this?

Cheers,

---Vipul

=======================================
Vipul Kashyap, Ph.D.
Senior Medical Informatician
Clinical Informatics R&D, Partners HealthCare System
Phone: (781)416-9254
Cell: (617)943-7120
http://www.partners.org/cird/AboutUs.asp?cBox=Staff&stAb=vik
 
To keep up you need the right answers; to get ahead you need the right questions
---John Browning and Spencer Reiss, Wired 6.04.95

-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Barry [mailto:phismith@buffalo.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 8:34 AM
To: Kashyap, Vipul; William Bug; bfo-discuss@googlegroups.com;
public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; obo-relations@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Alan March; Boris Hennig; Pierre Grenon; michael.f.uschold@boeing.com; Alan
Ruttenberg; Holger Stenzhorn
Subject: Re: Wiki Page: Clarification of BFO Process Definition using a wide
variety of use cases

Hi,

I think Barry has added me to this thread because of the comments
about my "Complex Procedures" paper. I hope you don't mind when I
post some thoughts about the definitions in the wiki page on processes.

1. Different stages of biological and clinical process can also be
executed by different participants, for instance a nurse and a
doctor, or a male and a female animal. So this should not be made a
defining feature of "computational process" in contrast to the
others two. It should be treated as a general option for all kinds
of processes.

2. It is important that "computational process" is defined as the
execution of a program, and something like this is missing in the
definition of "clinical care process." Not everything that is done
by clinical staff in the context of health care is also a clinical
care process (think of talking, breathing, humming, etc.). What
distinguishes clinical care processes from other kinds of thing that
nurses, doctors etc. do is that they have a point in the context of
health care, and are in some stricter sense part of health care.

I think it should be the general form of all those processes
which are realizations of realizable entities that they can involve
one or more participants.

The differences among such process will then lie in:

(a) The kind of realizable. Some realizables are specifiable in
detail by programs or algorithms, others are less strictly
determined by scripts, rules, or norms (such as human actions or
clinical procedures), and for some there may be no set of rules in
any strict sense, but only a pattern they typically conform to. This
distinction thus depends on the ontology of realizables.

(b) What the point is. This is how one can distinguish clinical
tasks from other tasks, e.g. processes like medical treatment from
other processes that may happen in the same context such as talking,
breathing, humming. The purpose of talking is (usually) not to cure anyone.

I have no idea how a good definition of "biological" process should
look like. The following is only an attempt:

"Biological Process: a realization of a realizable that is part of
the life of some living being."

This is far from perfect, since (1) life might also be a biological
process, which will make it circular - we would need an independent
account of what life is; and (2) not every process in the life of a
living being need be a biological process - we need to say more
about what it is to be "part of the life" of a living being.

Boris








The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information.
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 13:33:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:48 GMT