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

[Ryan B. <rbr...@bc...>]

Smith, Barry wrote:
>
> At 08:37 AM 1/25/2008, Matthew Pocock wrote:
> >On Friday 25 January 2008, Ryan Brinkman wrote:
> > > > Just to start you off: In my case there are intentions to perform
> > > > actions fulfilled the content of the phrase and to accept the
> > > > obligations consequent on uttering the phrase.
> > > > (There are similar sorts of intentions involved e.g. in protocoll
> > > > applications. If the protocoll requires that I feed the mouse with
> > > > rice, and my brother, for a joke, leaves rice in the same room with
> > > > the mouse, my brother is not performing a protocoll application.)
> > > > BS
> > >
> > > Assuming the manner the rice was left followed the requirements 
> laid out
> > > in the protocol and your brother did not introduce and potentially
> > > confounding conditions (e.g., the protocol did not specify that it was
> > > BS specifically who had to feed the mice, the amount and condition the
> > > rice was left in was correct, he didn't jump around the room), from a
> > > experimental standpoint were not the requirements of the protocol were
> > > realized even if that was not your brother's intent? I believe this is
> > > what matters from those who would use OBI, since  operationally I 
> would
> > > not handle the results of the experiment any different than if you fed
> > > the mice (again since there was a proper application of the  protocol,
> > > even if that was not the intent).
>
> I am assuming that the protocoll will have a good ontology in-built
> (the ontology people use when they speak English and say things like:
> feed the mice at regular intervals with ...)
>
> So let's twist the wheel one bit further.
>

To avoid confusion on my part, before you twist the wheel further, could
you provide a clarification to my understanding of the last case?  I
apologize, but it is not clear to me from your response if you still
feel a protocol has not been applied in this case. Since this is a
simple example I would like  to work through this one first before we
complicate things further.

As I understand it, the protocol was followed and there were no other 
confounding issues from your brother's intervention. I'd say, OK the 
protocol was applied, no harm done (bad brother, don't do it again but 
you get to be co-author on the Science manuscript). I believe you assert 
that since the intent was a joke there was no protocol application. If I 
was reviewing the data I would then have to exclude the data gathered 
(bad brother, no manuscript for either of us).

Thanks,
Ryan