Thank you so much for the input and discussion.
I have two principles to declare here.
First of all, I will reject the concept of relational quality.
If you are thinking of relational something, then everything is relational, even time.
We should make a clear line between different systems.Such situations as a) b)c) in Phillip's email, require a different level of investigation, and different set of experimental data. And I agree with him that currently we don't need to assert them into a system which deal with the experiment conducted in the earth with the Standard gravity and close to the surface of earth.
All of us are living in a certain system where we can normally live and conduct experiment. And this system is the umbrella for all our studies, as well as our ontology development.
Secondly, we can't leave the reality and talking about some terms which would rarely in use.
That's why for each term, at least a user case should be given.
Well, I believe our ontology developer are working on it and make it as papers.
So I should be patient.
[PS regarding to relational quality]
It seems that in PATO there is relational quality which are anterior to, molecular concentration...
Sorry I have problem with access of PATO
And this relational quality sounds as relations.
[Regarding to information carrier and IAO]
>From Alan' email "While the ontology is named Information Artifact Ontology, the top level term is Information Content Entity, and this is what Ceusters calls a referring entity - it is an entity that is about something."
That's a clear explanation. However do you mean the IAO is about the "referring entity" or the" Information Content Entity" is a referring entity?
And I am not so certainly agree with this assertion:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Phillip Lord <email@example.com> wrote:
Bill Hogan <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:Yes. So, in practice, there are only three scenarios where this becomes
> I see how weight is relational (it's a force, more precisely the
> gravitational force between an object and the earth, and we're
> measuring only the scalar component, and the vector is by convention
> towards the earth's center of mass) because it's relational between
> the object and the earth.
relevant. a) Where we perform an experiment in space, b) where we
perform an experiment whose purpose is to investigate variations in $g$
or c) when we perform experiments in a lift.I don't see how this answers the question of how mass is relational.> But how is mass relational? What other object(s) besides me determinesAny other nearby massive objects, or being in an accelerative frame of
> my mass?
reference. In practice, this is only going to be relevant where a) we
are in space, b) local variations of $g$ or c) we are in a lift.These argue for weight being relational, not mass. As far as I understand, mass is a property determine by the count and type of particles that constitute a material entity.
For most biomedical usage, of course, we can model at a level of
abstraction where none of this is important; the edge cases of
experiments in space are probably too rare to worry about. Personally, I
would consider all these distinctions which can be made in reality to be
out-of-scope from OBI.The scope of qualities is within that of PATO. OBI has qualities from PATO that have been requested or are needed to define other requested terms. Or at least that's the intent.-Alan
Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability
What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know.
Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools
to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters.
Obi-devel mailing list