Does Disease Inhere in Drug?

[Anthony Petosa]

Greetings.

Suppose 'Drug' is subtyped under bfo:Object and 'Disease' is subtyped under bfo:Disposition. Given BFO's 'Disposition', 'inheres in' and 'specifically depends on' definitions, is it reasonable state that 'Disease' bfo:inheres_in 'Drug'?

Disposition: (Elucidation) b is a disposition means:
        b is a realizable entity,
        & b is such that if it ceases to exist, then its bearer is physically changed,
        & b's realization occurs when and because this bearer is in some special physical circumstances,
        & this realization occurs in virtue of the bearer's physical make-up

inheres in: b inheres in c = (Def)
        b is a specifically dependent continuant,
        & c is an independent continuant that is not a spatial region,
        & b s-depends on c
Domain: Specifically Dependent Continuant
Range: Independent Continuant and (not(Spatial Region))

specifically depends on: (Elucidation) b specifically depends on c means:
        b and c do not share common parts,
        & b is of a nature such that at all times t it cannot exist at t unless c exists at t,
        & b is not a boundary of c
Domain: Specifically Dependent Continuant
Range: Specifically Dependent Continuant or (Independent Continuant and (not(Spatial Region)))

The following excerpt from "Building Ontologies with Basic Formal Ontology" (Arp, Robert; Smith, Barry; Spear, Andrew D., The MIT Press, 2015, p.101) provides some clarification:

"Unlike a role, a disposition is a realizable entity that is such that, if it ceases to exist, then its bearer is physically changed. Dispositions are in this sense (and in contrast to what is the case with roles) not optional. If an entity is physically a certain way, then it has a certain disposition, and if it ceases to be that way, then it loses that disposition."

This is very interesting because it turns the second Disposition condition on its head, which, in my opinion, serves to clarify this condition.

For example, some type of Drug is disposed to combat some type of Disease through a correlated process(es) (i.e., the disposition's realization) because of its active pharmacological ingredient, which in part constitutes its physical make up. This disposition is not optional. This does not mean all instances of the drug successfully combat all instances of the (targeted) disease. However, it does mean that if the drug is not disposed to do so, then its physical make up must have changed.

If so, then we can say Disease inheres_in Drug.

Is this reasonable? Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[Alan Ruttenberg]

Disease is understood to inhere in an organism. http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OGMS_0000031

Also see drug role in OBI http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000040

Alan

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BFO Discuss" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bfo-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/c0799281-7524-4529-9ced-319a6c49dadan%40googlegroups.com.
>

[Anthony Petosa]

Thank you for the reply.

I noticed the OGMS does not assert any axioms on Disease; it only specifies it having Disposition as its super class. Based upon the OGMS definition provided, is not an axiom like the following one warranted?

Disease SubClassOf Disposition and ('inheres in' some Organism)

Maybe this can be extended to account for the relation between Organism and some Disorder.

[Alan Ruttenberg]

Yes. OGMS is allergic to axioms for some reason.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/5f228a0f-dab7-4cac-98ec-d205998ad690n%40googlegroups.com.