#27 protocol_application (definition)

[JenFostel]

(unfolding-through-time -> process -> protocol-application)

Current comment in FuGO: this is an actual part of the
experiment. It includes the protocol that the
experimenter intends to carry out, deviations from this
and unintended variables, such as the earthquake that
occurred while the experiment was taking place.

proposed definition:
protocol_application: a process of carrying out
experimental plans, deviations from these plans, and
unintended variables.

(unfolding-through-time -> process -> protocol-application)

[MSIontology_admin]

Logged In: YES
user_id=1471055

I don't understand this. Does the protocol only capture the
commonly proposed schema, e.g. a standard procedure and the
protocol_application should then capture the actual
application of a specific protocol?
What do we gain in separating the descriptions for the
capturation of information about a process and the process
itself? Or do we just distinct between a future/intended
perspective and a past tense perspective here?
Would not the protocol only (that captures what was really
done) be enough?
Also an earthquake seems not to be a thing being carried out
(as part of a protocol_application) to me.

[JenFostel]

Logged In: YES
user_id=1535944

a protocol_document is currently defined as an object that
describes a protocol.

the protocol_application is the process of carrying out the
protocol, plus it additionally captures what actually
happened during the application of the protocol.

we do not define protocol (e.g. plan of the experient) as
far as i can see, which is the part you and i both seem to
find not necessary.

we do need to find a way to capture the information that an
earthquake happened, concurrently with everyone's blood
pressure spiking. Where would we want to capture this if
not part of protocol_application?