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

RE: [Obo-relations] Advancing translational research with the Semantic Web (Not clear about definition of <is_location_of_process>)

From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:56:56 -0400
Message-ID: <DBA3C02EAD0DC14BBB667C345EE2D1244285C2@PHSXMB20.partners.org>
To: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@buffalo.edu>
Cc: <samwald@gmx.at>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, <obo-relations@lists.sourceforge.net>


> >1. Does the presence of all participants of a process at a location
> enough to
> >define the presence of a process at a location?
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me.

[VK] This probably is a consequence of the way you define a biological process.

> >2. I do not claim to understand the OBO definition of a biological
> >process, but
> >from a computer science point of view, a process running on a
> >computer can have
> >states, e.g., activated, terminated, suspended, waiting-for-event, etc.
> These
> >states may correlate to some aggregation of states of participants in the
> >process. But I am not sure of the reason why a process cannot have a
> state?
> 
> It is (it seems to me) the program or algorithm or plan (all
> continuants) which is activated.
> If a process is suspended or terminated, then surely the process is
> not there any more.

[VK] OK that clarifies some of the issues and raises some others. For instance:
- A computer process is indeed activated, suspended or terminated when the
execution of the program is activated, suspended or terminated.
- Disagreement: A process in a suspended state (or according to you where all
the participants are in a suspended state) still exists.
- An interesting corollary is that the execution of a program needs to be
distinguished from a program (please feel free to fill in the biological
equivalents). 
- A process comes into existence only when a computer program executes.
- The last statement suggests that a process is more than the "sum of its
participants"

> And processes do not wait; people (for example) wait.

[VK] Processes do wait for messages or events from other processes. For instance
the process1 = execution of the web browser program; waits-for
messages from process2 = execution of the web server program.

> This terminology of 'states' is not, it seems to me, ontologically clear.

[VK] In attempt to clarify further, a state of a computer process = state of the
execution of the computer program at a given point in time.
Also, it would be a big help if you can provide me with ontologically clear
terminology of 'states of process participants'.

Cheers,

---Vipul





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 Thursday, 31 May 2007 20:58:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:27 UTC