- From: Smith, Barry <phismith@buffalo.edu>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:41:39 -0400
- To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
- Cc: <samwald@gmx.at>,<public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, <obo-relations@lists.sourceforge.net>
At 01:52 PM 5/31/2007, Kashyap, Vipul wrote: >Barry, > >Thanks for your e-mail. It was a hastily constructed definition and you have >raised some interesting questions. > >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. >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. And processes do not wait; people (for example) wait. This terminology of 'states' is not, it seems to me, ontologically clear. With greetings Barry >3. Of course the notion of essential state of a participant of a process is >close to the notion of the state of the process. > >Look forward to your feedback on 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, May 30, 2007 7:39 PM > > To: Kashyap, Vipul > > Subject: Re: [Obo-relations] Advancing translational research with the > > Semantic Web (Not clear about definition of <is_location_of_process>) > > > > Processes do not have states. Their participants have states. > > Moreover some states not essential to the process would be enough to > > satisfy your definition. Thus if Ivan's nose is cold and then less > > cold one day on the Minsk front during the 2nd world war, then the > > location of the second world war is Ivan's nose. > > BS > > > > At 10:53 AM 5/30/2007, you wrote: > > > > > > Let me introduce the relation <is_location_of_process> as an example. > > > > <A> <is_location_of_process> <B> means that <A> contains all of the > > > > participants that make up process <B>. > > > > A concrete example for the use of this property would be > > > > > > > > <Human_organism> <is_location_of_process> <blood_circulation> . > > > > > >[VK] I am not sure if I agree with the semantics of > > >"is_location_of_process" as > > >above. > > > > > >If you stick to the definition above, would propose that you rename > > >the relation > > >as: > > > > > ><A> <contains_all_participants_of_process> <B> > > > > > >My definition of <is_location_of_process> is: > > >A <is_location_of_process> <B> if there exists some finite interval of > > time > > >Delta_T and at least two states (potentially idempotent) of the process > > <B> > > >State1 and State2, s.t. > > >The transition of <B> from State S1 to S2 during time Delta_T happens at > > >location <A> > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > > >Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > > >control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > > >http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Obo-relations mailing list > > >Obo-relations@lists.sourceforge.net > > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/obo-relations > > > > > > > > >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 23:41:47 UTC