Fwd: Processes and state changes
Chimezie Thomas-Ogbuji
Subject: Processes and state changes
------------------------
From: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:41 AM
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>
Cc: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie.th...@case.edu>
Hi Alan,
I am modeling State changes as they related to Processes and would
like to have your thoughts. The specific thing I am modeling is
'SleepArousal' - def.: abrupt change from sleep to wakefulness.
As I see it, there is a 'State' of 'Sleep' and another of 'Awake (or
WakeState)', both of which are subclasses of 'ConsciousnessState'.
Here is the structure
(Continuant)
Quality
State
ConsciousnessState
SleepState
WakeState
Then, there are two process - SleepProcess and WakefulnessProcess
(Occurent)
Process
....
PhysiologicalProcess
NervousSystemProcess
ConsciousnessProcess
SleepProcess
WakefulnessProcess
Now, to model Sleep arousal, I am treating it as a representation:
Representation
....
SleepStateChangeFinding
SleepArousalFinding Def: sdo:SleepStateChangeFinding that
sdo:hasConsciousnessStage some sdo:WakeState
and ro:preceded_by some sdo:SleepState
The problem with this is the use of State (continuant) with the
ro:preceded_by relation - it is defined as linking classes of
processes (occurent).
- Is this definition of 'preceded_by' too restrictive?
- what are your thoughts on modeling process specified using a
starting state and an ending state?
thanks,
Sivaram
P.S: I am cc'ing Chime, who I think you have met before, and is
working with me on the SDO model.
----------
From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:26 PM
To: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
Cc: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie.th...@case.edu>
My first question is why use state at all. Seems that you would do
fine with three process types:
SleepProcess and WakefulnessProcess as you have already,
then
SleepArousalProcess: A ConsciousnessProcess that
Then something like ConsciousnessProcess = unionOf(
WakefulnessProcess SleepProcess SleepArousalProcess
FallingAsleepProcess)
DisjointClasses(FallingAsleepProcess SleepArousalProcess
WakefulnessProcess SleepProcess)
And
WakefulnessProcess immediately_preceded_by SleepArousalProcess
SleepArousalProcess immediately_preceded_by SleepProcess
etc.
What def are you using for ConsciousnessProcess? Worries me a little.
---
Also not sure what the finding stuff is about. Probably need more context.
-Alan
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Sivaram Arabandi
----------
From: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:09 AM
To: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie.th...@case.edu>
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>
> Date: October 6, 2009 12:04:03 AM EDT
> To: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Processes and state changes
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Sivaram Arabandi
>>
>> I am using ConsciousnessProcess as an umbrella term to encompass the
>> processes related to consciousness (level of alertness) - sleeping and
>> wakefulness fall under this category. Currently I am tending towards only a
>> SleepProcess and WakefullnessProcess and these two processes work in tandem.
>> I think WakefullnessProcess and SleepArousalProcess can be considered
>> synonymous.
>
> Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds like one is relatively static, and
> one a changing sitation.
>
>> Also, not sure if there needs to be a separate
>> FallingAsleepProcess - it is a balance between the Sleep and Wakefullness
>> process.
>
> Similar to above. Sort of like the difference between constant
> velocity and acceleration.
>
>
>> I created two functions SleepFunction and WakeFunction that inhere in the
>> two processes.
>
> Functions, if they are BFO:functions, inhere in independent
> continuants, not processes.
>
> And created the two states SleepState and WakeState as
>>
>> realization of these functions.
>
>
> Realizations of functions (and all realizable entities) are processes in BFO.
>
>> If at all there may be a
>> FallingAsleepState.
>
> I don't understand how you decide to assign things to processes versus states.
>
>> I am using the Findings as representation artifacts that document one of
>> these - a function, state or a process. Here I have SleepArousalFinding =
>> SleepStateChangeFinding that hasConsciousnessStage some WakeState and
>> transformation_of some SleepState.
>
> OK on the finding.
>
> However transformation doesn't work well in OWL as there is no sense
> of time. With a transformation there is the same instance that is
> first of one class and then of another.
>
> What's the situation that you are trying to represent. Is it that you
> are observing the patient every few minutes, say, and recording at
> each time whether they are sleeping or awake? And then you record a
> finding that they work up whenever at t they were found to be asleep
> and at t+1 they are found to be awake?
>
>> I do think all three - process, function and state, are needed and Finding
>> is used to document one or more of them.
>
> What is the sense of function. Can you give me a sample definition of
> a function term?
>
>> State is a useful here and is a
>> dimension that is different from a process or a function. Recently, there
>> was a discussion of 'Tiredness' and I believe the only way to model this is
>> as a 'state' - there is no corresponding process or function related to
>> tiredness.
>
> Are you referring to tiredness as the report of a patient? I.e. a
> symptom? Or can tiredness be a sign?
>
>> If you have time to look at this, I can send you the zip of the SDO and that
>> can provide you with the complete picture. Please let me know.
>
> Sure, I'll have a look :)
>
> -Alan
>
>> thanks,
>> Sivaram
----------
From: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:09 AM
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>
Cc: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie.th...@case.edu>
Hi Alan,
Please find attached a zip of the SDO with its supporting cast. :)
State = "the particular condition that someone or something is in at a
specific time"; I guess it represents a slice in time (however long
that may be) with specific characteristics.
Function = signifies a purpose e.g: SleepFunction = purpose of the
sleep process to induce sleep (I can probably rename this function to
SleepInductionFunction), the purpose of the Hemoglobin-Oxygen binding
is to transport oxygen.
Sleep and Wakefulness processes are not static - both are very much
active all the time and it is the balance between the two which
determines the outcome. Therefore, we can consider FallingAsleep as a
certain time period during which Sleep process has the upper hand.
Conversely, we may have a WakingUp state.
A SleepArousalFinding is a documentation of the abrupt transition from
the Sleep state to Wake state. It is documented as a EEG finding - an
abrupt change in wave pattern (REM/NREM pattern to a Wake pattern).
Each episode of this is annotated with its time, duration etc. Hence,
my original attempt to define this using 'preceded_by' relation.
Tiredness is basically a symptom (but can also be inferred based on
other observations). Same with Pain.
-Sivaram
On Oct 6, 2009, at 12:04 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Sivaram Arabandi
> <sivaram....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am using ConsciousnessProcess as an umbrella term to encompass the
>> processes related to consciousness (level of alertness) - sleeping and
>> wakefulness fall under this category. Currently I am tending towards only a
>> SleepProcess and WakefullnessProcess and these two processes work in tandem.
>> I think WakefullnessProcess and SleepArousalProcess can be considered
>> synonymous.
>
> Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds like one is relatively static, and
> one a changing sitation.
>
>> Also, not sure if there needs to be a separate
>> FallingAsleepProcess - it is a balance between the Sleep and Wakefullness
>> process.
>
> Similar to above. Sort of like the difference between constant
> velocity and acceleration.
>
>
>> I created two functions SleepFunction and WakeFunction that inhere in the
>> two processes.
>
> Functions, if they are BFO:functions, inhere in independent
> continuants, not processes.
>
> And created the two states SleepState and WakeState as
>>
>> realization of these functions.
>
>
> Realizations of functions (and all realizable entities) are processes in BFO.
>
>> If at all there may be a
>> FallingAsleepState.
>
> I don't understand how you decide to assign things to processes versus states.
>
>> I am using the Findings as representation artifacts that document one of
>> these - a function, state or a process. Here I have SleepArousalFinding =
>> SleepStateChangeFinding that hasConsciousnessStage some WakeState and
>> transformation_of some SleepState.
>
> OK on the finding.
>
> However transformation doesn't work well in OWL as there is no sense
> of time. With a transformation there is the same instance that is
> first of one class and then of another.
>
> What's the situation that you are trying to represent. Is it that you
> are observing the patient every few minutes, say, and recording at
> each time whether they are sleeping or awake? And then you record a
> finding that they work up whenever at t they were found to be asleep
> and at t+1 they are found to be awake?
>
>> I do think all three - process, function and state, are needed and Finding
>> is used to document one or more of them.
>
> What is the sense of function. Can you give me a sample definition of
> a function term?
>
>> State is a useful here and is a
>> dimension that is different from a process or a function. Recently, there
>> was a discussion of 'Tiredness' and I believe the only way to model this is
>> as a 'state' - there is no corresponding process or function related to
>> tiredness.
>
> Are you referring to tiredness as the report of a patient? I.e. a
> symptom? Or can tiredness be a sign?
>
>> If you have time to look at this, I can send you the zip of the SDO and that
>> can provide you with the complete picture. Please let me know.
>
> Sure, I'll have a look :)
>
> -Alan
>
>> thanks,
>> Sivaram
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> My first question is why use state at all. Seems that you would do
>>> fine with three process types:
>>>
>>> SleepProcess and WakefulnessProcess as you have already,
>>>
>>> then
>>>
>>> SleepArousalProcess: A ConsciousnessProcess that
>>>
>>> Then something like ConsciousnessProcess = unionOf(
>>> WakefulnessProcess SleepProcess SleepArousalProcess
>>> FallingAsleepProcess)
>>>
>>> DisjointClasses(FallingAsleepProcess SleepArousalProcess
>>> WakefulnessProcess SleepProcess)
>>>
>>>
>>> And
>>> WakefulnessProcess immediately_preceded_by SleepArousalProcess
>>> SleepArousalProcess immediately_preceded_by SleepProcess
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> What def are you using for ConsciousnessProcess? Worries me a little.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Also not sure what the finding stuff is about. Probably need more context.
>>>
>>> -Alan
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Sivaram Arabandi
>>> <sivaram....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>> I am modeling State changes as they related to Processes and would like
>>>> to
>>>> have your thoughts. The specific thing I am modeling is 'SleepArousal' -
>>>> def.: abrupt change from sleep to wakefulness.
>>>> As I see it, there is a 'State' of 'Sleep' and another of 'Awake (or
>>>> WakeState)', both of which are subclasses of 'ConsciousnessState'. Here
>>>> is
>>>> the structure
>>>> (Continuant)
>>>> Quality
>>>> State
>>>> ConsciousnessState
>>>> SleepState
>>>> WakeState
>>>>
>>>> Then, there are two process - SleepProcess and WakefulnessProcess
>>>> (Occurent)
>>>> Process
>>>> ....
>>>> PhysiologicalProcess
>>>> NervousSystemProcess
>>>> ConsciousnessProcess
>>>> SleepProcess
>>>> WakefulnessProcess
>>>>
>>>> Now, to model Sleep arousal, I am treating it as a representation:
>>>> Representation
>>>> ....
>>>> SleepStateChangeFinding
>>>> SleepArousalFinding Def: sdo:SleepStateChangeFinding that
>>>> sdo:hasConsciousnessStage some sdo:WakeState
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>> ro:preceded_by some sdo:SleepState
>>>>
>>>> The problem with this is the use of State (continuant) with the
>>>> ro:preceded_by relation - it is defined as linking classes of processes
>>>> (occurent).
>>>> - Is this definition of 'preceded_by' too restrictive?
>>>> - what are your thoughts on modeling process specified using a starting
>>>> state and an ending state?
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Sivaram
>>>> P.S: I am cc'ing Chime, who I think you have met before, and is working
>>>> with
>>>> me on the SDO model.
>>
>>
----------
From: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:43 AM
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>, Chime Ogbuji
<chimezie.th...@case.edu>
If you use Protege to view SDO, please set your library folder to the
'3rdParty' folder within this archive.
-Sivaram
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
> Date: October 6, 2009 12:09:04 PM EDT
> To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie.th...@case.edu>
>
>
> State = "the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time"; I guess it represents a slice in time (however long that may be) with specific characteristics.
> Function = signifies a purpose e.g: SleepFunction = purpose of the sleep process to induce sleep (I can probably rename this function to SleepInductionFunction), the purpose of the Hemoglobin-Oxygen binding is to transport oxygen.
>
> Sleep and Wakefulness processes are not static - both are very much active all the time and it is the balance between the two which determines the outcome. Therefore, we can consider FallingAsleep as a certain time period during which Sleep process has the upper hand. Conversely, we may have a WakingUp state.
>
> A SleepArousalFinding is a documentation of the abrupt transition from the Sleep state to Wake state. It is documented as a EEG finding - an abrupt change in wave pattern (REM/NREM pattern to a Wake pattern). Each episode of this is annotated with its time, duration etc. Hence, my original attempt to define this using 'preceded_by' relation.
>
> Tiredness is basically a symptom (but can also be inferred based on other observations). Same with Pain.
>
> -Sivaram
>
>
> On Oct 6, 2009, at 12:04 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Sivaram Arabandi
>> <sivaram....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am using ConsciousnessProcess as an umbrella term to encompass the
>>> processes related to consciousness (level of alertness) - sleeping and
>>> wakefulness fall under this category. Currently I am tending towards only a
>>> SleepProcess and WakefullnessProcess and these two processes work in tandem.
>>> I think WakefullnessProcess and SleepArousalProcess can be considered
>>> synonymous.
>>
>> Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds like one is relatively static, and
>> one a changing sitation.
>>
>>> Also, not sure if there needs to be a separate
>>> FallingAsleepProcess - it is a balance between the Sleep and Wakefullness
>>> process.
>>
>> Similar to above. Sort of like the difference between constant
>> velocity and acceleration.
>>
>>
>>> I created two functions SleepFunction and WakeFunction that inhere in the
>>> two processes.
>>
>> Functions, if they are BFO:functions, inhere in independent
>> continuants, not processes.
>>
>> And created the two states SleepState and WakeState as
>>>
>>> realization of these functions.
>>
>>
>> Realizations of functions (and all realizable entities) are processes in BFO.
>>
>>> If at all there may be a
>>> FallingAsleepState.
>>
>> I don't understand how you decide to assign things to processes versus states.
>>
>>> I am using the Findings as representation artifacts that document one of
>>> these - a function, state or a process. Here I have SleepArousalFinding =
>>> SleepStateChangeFinding that hasConsciousnessStage some WakeState and
>>> transformation_of some SleepState.
>>
>> OK on the finding.
>>
>> However transformation doesn't work well in OWL as there is no sense
>> of time. With a transformation there is the same instance that is
>> first of one class and then of another.
>>
>> What's the situation that you are trying to represent. Is it that you
>> are observing the patient every few minutes, say, and recording at
>> each time whether they are sleeping or awake? And then you record a
>> finding that they work up whenever at t they were found to be asleep
>> and at t+1 they are found to be awake?
>>
>>> I do think all three - process, function and state, are needed and Finding
>>> is used to document one or more of them.
>>
>> What is the sense of function. Can you give me a sample definition of
>> a function term?
>>
>>> State is a useful here and is a
>>> dimension that is different from a process or a function. Recently, there
>>> was a discussion of 'Tiredness' and I believe the only way to model this is
>>> as a 'state' - there is no corresponding process or function related to
>>> tiredness.
>>
>> Are you referring to tiredness as the report of a patient? I.e. a
>> symptom? Or can tiredness be a sign?
>>
>>> If you have time to look at this, I can send you the zip of the SDO and that
>>> can provide you with the complete picture. Please let me know.
>>
>> Sure, I'll have a look :)
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Sivaram
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My first question is why use state at all. Seems that you would do
>>>> fine with three process types:
>>>>
>>>> SleepProcess and WakefulnessProcess as you have already,
>>>>
>>>> then
>>>>
>>>> SleepArousalProcess: A ConsciousnessProcess that
>>>>
>>>> Then something like ConsciousnessProcess = unionOf(
>>>> WakefulnessProcess SleepProcess SleepArousalProcess
>>>> FallingAsleepProcess)
>>>>
>>>> DisjointClasses(FallingAsleepProcess SleepArousalProcess
>>>> WakefulnessProcess SleepProcess)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And
>>>> WakefulnessProcess immediately_preceded_by SleepArousalProcess
>>>> SleepArousalProcess immediately_preceded_by SleepProcess
>>>>
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> What def are you using for ConsciousnessProcess? Worries me a little.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Also not sure what the finding stuff is about. Probably need more context.
>>>>
>>>> -Alan
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Sivaram Arabandi
>>>> <sivaram....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>> I am modeling State changes as they related to Processes and would like
>>>>> to
>>>>> have your thoughts. The specific thing I am modeling is 'SleepArousal' -
>>>>> def.: abrupt change from sleep to wakefulness.
>>>>> As I see it, there is a 'State' of 'Sleep' and another of 'Awake (or
>>>>> WakeState)', both of which are subclasses of 'ConsciousnessState'. Here
>>>>> is
>>>>> the structure
>>>>> (Continuant)
>>>>> Quality
>>>>> State
>>>>> ConsciousnessState
>>>>> SleepState
>>>>> WakeState
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, there are two process - SleepProcess and WakefulnessProcess
>>>>> (Occurent)
>>>>> Process
>>>>> ....
>>>>> PhysiologicalProcess
>>>>> NervousSystemProcess
>>>>> ConsciousnessProcess
>>>>> SleepProcess
>>>>> WakefulnessProcess
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, to model Sleep arousal, I am treating it as a representation:
>>>>> Representation
>>>>> ....
>>>>> SleepStateChangeFinding
>>>>> SleepArousalFinding Def: sdo:SleepStateChangeFinding that
>>>>> sdo:hasConsciousnessStage some sdo:WakeState
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>> ro:preceded_by some sdo:SleepState
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with this is the use of State (continuant) with the
>>>>> ro:preceded_by relation - it is defined as linking classes of processes
>>>>> (occurent).
>>>>> - Is this definition of 'preceded_by' too restrictive?
>>>>> - what are your thoughts on modeling process specified using a starting
>>>>> state and an ending state?
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Sivaram
>>>>> P.S: I am cc'ing Chime, who I think you have met before, and is working
>>>>> with
>>>>> me on the SDO model.
>>>
>>>
>
----------
From: Chimezie Thomas-Ogbuji <c...@case.edu>
Date: Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM
To: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>, Chime Ogbuji
<chimezie.th...@case.edu>
Hey Siva, Alan.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Sivaram Arabandi
<sivaram....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> State = "the particular condition that someone or something is in at a
>> specific time"; I guess it represents a slice in time (however long that may
>> be) with specific characteristics.
I've found the notion of a state to be problematic to the BFO
framework. The best definition I've found that assumes a grounding in
BFO is the one from [1] which says:
"By physiological and pathological state we mean a certain enduring
constellation of values of an
independent continuant’s aggregate physical properties."
Having aligned the Computer-based Patient Record (CPR) ontology to
BioTop, cpr:state is a subclass of BioTop's state (which itself is a
subclass of snap:Quality. However, the idea of a state as a quality
doesn't seem intuitive to me.
DOLCE, on the other hand, is a bit more precise and distinguishes
between occurrents that are stative and those that are events. The
former are cumulative and the latter are not. Specifically, it makes
the distinction ..:
"according to whether it holds of the mereological sum of two of its
instances, i.e. if it is cumulative or not. A sitting occurrence is
stative since the sum of two sittings is still a sitting occurrence."
Within stative-occurrents, they ..:
".. distinguish between states and processes according to
homeomericity: sitting is classified as a state but running is
classified as a process, since there are (very short) temporal parts
of a running that are not themselves runnings. "
These are the criteria I have found most useful in distinguishing
states from 'processes'. By this, latter distinction, then defining
sleep as a 'state' makes sense since every part of a sleep state is
still considered sleep.
>> A SleepArousalFinding is a documentation of the abrupt transition from the
>> Sleep state to Wake state. It is documented as a EEG finding - an abrupt
>> change in wave pattern (REM/NREM pattern to a Wake pattern). Each episode of
>> this is annotated with its time, duration etc. Hence, my original attempt to
>> define this using 'preceded_by' relation.
Looking at SleepArousalFinding, I'm having a hard time understanding
its placement in OGMS, but here is my understanding of how the CPR
framework for findings, what they represent, etc. can fit your
description above.
SleepArousalFinding is a cpr:clinical-finding (a representational
artifact) that is the output of an EEG cpr:clinical-act. It is the
cpr:representationOf a change in wave pattern. I'd have to think a
bit about how you could model a change in wave pattern in a way that
is a useful distinction for your usecase.
I don't think transformation_of makes sense when applied to the
finding itself, since it isn't the representational artifact that has
changed but the phenomena it represents (note, cpr:representationOf is
similar to IAO's 'about' relationship).
I think what you might want to do instead is consider the sleep to
awake state transition as a process (after-all, it 'occurs' and - by
the DOLCE criteria - is not a state). In which case
SleepArousalFinding becomes:
class: SleepArousalFinding
EquivalentTo:
cpr:clinical-finding that
( cpr:representationOf some WakingProcess ) and
( cpr:outputOf some EEG)
some comments to Alan's response are below:
Do you consider the transformation between two static 'states' (for
lack of a better word) to be a process?
So, SleepFunction and WakeFunction would inhere in the patient that
participates in the two processes?
I wonder if you found the distinctions I re-used from DOLCE useful for
this purpose
[1] Rosse, C. et. al., "A Strategy for Improving and Integrating
Biomedical Ontologies"
----------------------
Chime (chee-meh) Ogbuji (oh-bu-gee)
Heart and Vascular Institute (Clinical Investigations)
Architect / Informatician
Cleveland Clinic (ogb...@ccf.org)
Ph.D. Student Case Western Reserve University (chimezie.th...@case.edu)
----------
From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM
To: Chimezie Thomas-Ogbuji <c...@case.edu>
Cc: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>, Chime Ogbuji
<chimezie.th...@case.edu>
No, me either. But am constantly doing battle over things like this
being pronounced as state.
This seems principled.
Here's what I consider to be the bug. By making the comparison you
implicitly admit to the states as having temporal parts. And they stop
being qualities.
I think the distinction between processes that are self similar and
those that have varying part types is useful. But it isn't enough to
smush occurrent and continuant together.
In addition there is problem with this view having to do with temporal
granularity. If you look a little closer you find that sleep isn't
homogenous. Certainly not at the molecular level. But even at higher
physiological levels. So you have this problem that you have to talk
about these "states" having parts that are processes.
OGMS will use IAO, which has information artifacts - representations.
Under generically dependent continuant.
Similar in BFO/OGMS. Though I would distinguish representations of
changes of wave patterns from findings of sleep arousal. The former is
considered evidence for the latter.
Yes
That was my feeling as well.
same comment. In OBI we would say that the change in wave pattern is a
proxy for waking process.
What you consider states, I consider processes. Both part of the life
process of the person. The process between them seems like a good
candidate for the referent of "SleepArousalProcess"
I'm not sure what is being referred to here. Functions are
"potentials" in BFO. They are "realized" in processes. Functions are
the result of design or positive selection.
Barry also thinks functions don't inhere in organisms, but only in
parts. So the closest we might get to something like this might be to
talk about functions of e.g. the brain, - things that the brain
evolved to do - that are realized in sleep.
It would be helpful for Siva to elaborate on what these terms mean to him.
As I said, I find the distinction of self-similar versus not to be
useful. But "States" have always struck me to be in the realm of
representations - they are descriptions of the way things are, often
approximate, and used in computation.
-Alan
Will have a look.
-Alan
----------
From: Chimezie Thomas-Ogbuji <c...@case.edu>
Date: Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM
To: cpr-on...@googlegroups.com
See the thread below regarding states, etc.
Forwarded conversation
Subject: Processes and state changes
------------------------
From: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Cc: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie.th...@case.edu>
----------
From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:26 PM
To: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
Cc: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie.th...@case.edu>
----------
From: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:09 AM
To: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie.th...@case.edu>
> To: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
----------
From: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Cc: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie.th...@case.edu>
Function = signifies a purpose e.g: SleepFunction = purpose of the
sleep process to induce sleep (I can probably rename this function to
SleepInductionFunction), the purpose of the Hemoglobin-Oxygen binding
is to transport oxygen.
Sleep and Wakefulness processes are not static - both are very much
active all the time and it is the balance between the two which
determines the outcome. Therefore, we can consider FallingAsleep as a
certain time period during which Sleep process has the upper hand.
Conversely, we may have a WakingUp state.
Tiredness is basically a symptom (but can also be inferred based on
other observations). Same with Pain.
-Sivaram
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Sivaram Arabandi
>>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Sivaram Arabandi
----------
From: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:43 AM
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>, Chime Ogbuji
> Cc: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie.th...@case.edu>
> Function = signifies a purpose e.g: SleepFunction = purpose of the sleep process to induce sleep (I can probably rename this function to SleepInductionFunction), the purpose of the Hemoglobin-Oxygen binding is to transport oxygen.
>
> Sleep and Wakefulness processes are not static - both are very much active all the time and it is the balance between the two which determines the outcome. Therefore, we can consider FallingAsleep as a certain time period during which Sleep process has the upper hand. Conversely, we may have a WakingUp state.
> Tiredness is basically a symptom (but can also be inferred based on other observations). Same with Pain.
>
> -Sivaram
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Sivaram Arabandi
>>>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Sivaram Arabandi
----------
From: Chimezie Thomas-Ogbuji <c...@case.edu>
Date: Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM
To: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>, Chime Ogbuji
the DOLCE criteria - is not a state). In which case
----------
From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanrut...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM
To: Chimezie Thomas-Ogbuji <c...@case.edu>
Cc: Sivaram Arabandi <sivaram....@gmail.com>, Chime Ogbuji
This seems principled.
Yes
--
----------------------
Chime (chee-meh) Ogbuji (oh-bu-gee)
Heart and Vascular Institute (Clinical Investigations)
Architect / Informatician
Cleveland Clinic (ogb...@ccf.org)
Ph.D. Student Case Western Reserve University (chimezie.th...@case.edu)
Sivaram Arabandi
>> On Oct 6, 2009, at 12:04 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>>>> I think WakefullnessProcess and SleepArousalProcess can be considered
>>>> synonymous.
>>>
>>> Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds like one is relatively static, and
>>> one a changing sitation.
lack of a better word) to be a process?
>>>> I created two functions SleepFunction and WakeFunction that inhere in
>>>> the
>>>> two processes.
>>>
>>> Functions, if they are BFO:functions, inhere in independent
>>> continuants, not processes.
participates in the two processes?
>>> I don't understand how you decide to assign things to processes versus
>>> states.
this purpose
>>>>> My first question is why use state at all. Seems that you would do
>>>>> fine with three process types: