Re: [Obo-discuss] [obo-admin] Request for namespace DRON and associated PURL

[Alan R. <ala...@gm...>]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Bill Hogan <ho...@gm...> wrote:

> >> And the study of their effects on disease, symptoms, diagnosis, etc.
> >> is a scientific pursuit to which DrOn is well suited.  So I still
> >> argue that DrOn clearly falls into the domain of translational science
> >> and thus is a scientific ontology.
> >
> >
> > The consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent. I would say that an
> > ontology of consent procedures and trial recruiting strategies falls in
> the
> > domain of translational science, but isn't a scientific ontology in the
> > sense you seem to be using it.
>
> Sorry, as I mentioned to Howard in an offline discussion, I was using
> "scientific ontology" in a very broad sense to mean that it refers to
> any ontology that is useful in the conduct of science.  How would you
> define it?


I was reasoning from

"To call something clearly in the clinical domain 'administrative' is
an error.  DrOn is in no way an "administrative" ontology, unless by
"administer", you mean 'administer a drug to a patient'.
An extensive scientific process goes into the development of drugs, so
their ingredients and their quantities are not an accident at all."


Here it seemed to me you were setting up an opposition between
"administrative" and "scientific".  But in the current message you say "any
ontology that is useful in the conduct of science." is a scientific
ontology. I would conclude from these that an "administrative" ontology is
not useful in the conduct of science. But I don't think that's correct.

As for not conceding the other point, well, there's always tomorrow ;-)

Best,
Alan