Re: [Obi-plan-branch] [Obi-relations] [Obi-role-branch] role clean up-> protocolapplication, natural process

[Matthew P. <mat...@nc...>]

On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Melanie Courtot wrote:
> > At 07:31 PM 1/22/2008, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> >>If the entity is a process in which an incision is made in the
> >>animal, some tissue is cut and then sutured, and the animal is closed
> >>up, we have a number of possibilities around what might have
> >>motivated it ( or for which the process was "designed"). It could be
> >>that it is a sham surgery, it could be that it is an unlearned
> >>attempt to heal, it could be the cruel act of a sadist. These
> >>descriptions feel like the process "plays some role" that is
> >>essentially determined socially. So here there is a similarity.
> >
> > What motivated it, motivated it, independently of any description we
> > assign to it later.

The act is the same in each case. The plan realised is different. Is this not 
sufficient?

As a logical follow-on from this, does this also sudgest that roles should 
stick to things that happened, and the 'motiviational' roles should move into 
the plan?

Matthew