[Obi-instrument-branch] instrument branch '10 most wanted' representational units

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Daniel Schober

unread,
Dec 11, 2008, 8:19:47 AM12/11/08
to obi-instru...@lists.sourceforge.net
Dear instrumenteers,
here an initial draff for the '10 most wanted' in our branch. This was the outcome of this tuesdays instrument call, but I added some additional thoughts.
Please add and refine. When ready, I believe we should send it to Bjoern as well.
Best ,
    Daniel Schober.





10 most ‘important’ representational units

 from the obi Instrument branch

 

Most important classes:

Intrabranch classes:

device

instrument

plattform

artefact object

 

Interbranch classes:

device function

( canonical realisation of device function )

produce data function

information processor function

process

protocol

 

Most important relations: (using Manchester syntax)

For device:

material entity  and

has function SOME function

is manufactured by  SOME  (organisation OR homo sapiens)

is device for  SOME process (inverse:  process utilizes device )

gets_energy_from SOME homo sapiens  (just an idea to reflect that a device is usually more passive and handled by humans, whereas instruments are actively driving processes )

For instrument:

device  and

has_parameter_settings SOME information artefact   (how does this relate to has quality? Would has software be a subrelation here as well?)

gets_energy_from SOME power supply

has part  min 5             (5 is quite arbitrary…, just an idea)


Interbranch requirements:

The process or its representation, the protocol needs to capture:

 A. Material inputs and outputs of an instrument application

has material entity input material entity/biomaterial

has material entity output material entity/biomaterial

 
B. Data/parameter inputs and outputs of an instrument application

has information artefact input information artefact

has information artefact output information artefact

 

Issues/Problems:

It’s hard to find a formal differrentiae to distinguish instrument from device. Humans tend to classify more in a probabilistic and fuzzy way. It is hard to discretely model phase transitions that are continuous.
In general an instrument is regarded to be more complex as a device. Complexity is hard to define. Can a certain amount of ‘has part’ statements (min cardinality) lead to an acceptable solution ? Are there approaches to model Entrophy? This also lead to the question if a distinction between a device function and a instrument function is justified.
Do we need the device / instrument distinction at all? What do we gain having this distinction? A simple device should not get all the properties of an instrument. E.g. a 'tube' does not need to have parameters, data outputs, software, ..that a 'flow cytometer' instrument might have.


In short these are our current issues:


1. What additional intrinsic characteristics (differrentiae) do Instruments have ?

         Complexity

         Active-passive usage

         Electric, mechanic

         Facilitates more than one step in a process ?

         There is a protocol and settings for it

 

2. Can certain biomaterials be seen as device, E.g:

        Biomaterial

         Plasmid Vector

        Device

         molecular maschine

        Plasmid Vector

        Role

         molecular maschine

        Plasmid Vector

-- 
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Daniel Schober

NET Project - Ontologist

The European Bioinformatics Institute   email:  sch...@ebi.ac.uk
EMBL Outstation - Hinxton               direct: +44 (0)1223 494410
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus            fax: +44 (0)1223 494 468
Cambridge CB10 1SD, UK                 	Room: A3-141 (extension building)

Project page: www.ebi.ac.uk/net-project

Personal page:    http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Information/Staff/person_maint.php?s_person_id=734
Former home page: http://www.bioinf.mdc-berlin.de/%7Eschober/

Daniel Schober

unread,
Dec 11, 2008, 12:03:14 PM12/11/08
to Daniel Schober, obi-instru...@lists.sourceforge.net
To add and refine, please modify the word doc in the svn folder at
\obi\trunk\docs\developer\Instrument branch docs
rather than in the email.
Cheers,
        Daniel.


Daniel Schober wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/

_______________________________________________ Obi-instrument-branch mailing list Obi-instru...@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/obi-instrument-branch
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages