You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am posting this here not to discuss representation of diseases per se, but to demonstrate a general strategy that could be applied in a targeted fashion to different parts of COB. Please keep this is mind when responding.
The general strategy is that in areas where we have disagreement about upper level philosophical classification (for example: is an organization a material entity) we can deliberately conflate, and formally define the conflated class as a union of philosophically committed classes.
So for example, if we decide that organization has a material aspect (consider organizations such as armies, orchestras, where the physical manifestation is important) or an immaterial aspect (organizations with zero members) or even dispositions, we could represent as
organization = organisation-ME OR organization-IE OR organization-D
(note: if implemented in COB these axioms and entities would not need to go in the main ontology)
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
This discussion is for the strategy outlined in this paper:
Scalable representations of diseases in biomedical ontologies Stefan Schulz, Kent Spackman, Andrew James, Cristian Cocos, and Martin Boeker
I am posting this here not to discuss representation of diseases per se, but to demonstrate a general strategy that could be applied in a targeted fashion to different parts of COB. Please keep this is mind when responding.
The general strategy is that in areas where we have disagreement about upper level philosophical classification (for example: is an organization a material entity) we can deliberately conflate, and formally define the conflated class as a union of philosophically committed classes.
So for example, if we decide that
organization
has a material aspect (consider organizations such as armies, orchestras, where the physical manifestation is important) or an immaterial aspect (organizations with zero members) or even dispositions, we could represent asorganization = organisation-ME OR organization-IE OR organization-D
(note: if implemented in COB these axioms and entities would not need to go in the main ontology)
Some slides that further explore the strategy:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1q5LjJ_cekDN6n029CYlyXrGlz6wE-H3brGx9U0F39sE/edit#slide=id.gde0f3b01d8_0_178
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions