From: Werner C. in S. <wer...@ec...> - 2005-09-13 13:25:28
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Fabian Neuhaus" <fne...@we...> > Werner, since we agree that terminology does not matter, let's give up the > term 'agent', and take a step back. Why should we do that ? It IS already an established OBO-relationship and the way it is described there is ok for me: the causally active participant in a process. > We both agree that there is a participation relation between objects and > events. > We both agree that there is a subtype of the participation relation of the > type: Participates_while_undergoing_some_change Yes, but BECAUSE OF the process in which it takes part, and, in addition, also other relationships for entities that are not causally active, or are not undergoing change, but are either necessary for the process to be able to unfold, or assist in its unfolding. An example of the former would be John's swimming in the North Sea: John is the agent, the North Sea the participant of the former type: no mass medium, no swimming. An example of the latter would be using some device to weed the garden. > Now you want to introduce a more fine grained distinction and introduce > subtypes of Participates_while_undergoing_some_change. No, I didn't. The "change" was, I repeat, only mentioned because there are processes in which an entity enjoying the has_agent relationship also undergoes the process such that it changes: eg suicide, self-destruction, cell-transformation, etc. Werner |