Represent risk

[pbuttigieg]

Following on from https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio/issues/18#issuecomment-141997494 and https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio/issues/21#issuecomment-142900842

There is a need to have a class to express "risk" in the SDGIO. WMO DRR suggests

Probable impacts, expressed in terms of expected loss of lives, people injured, property, livelihoods, economic activity disrupted or environmental damage. [Source: ISDR Terminology of disaster risk reduction]

In the SGIO, this will probably be more a probability of some entity realising an innate vulnerability (disposition) and a mitigated by measures that promote robustness and resilience (https://github.com/pato-ontology/pato/issues/67)

[pbuttigieg]

@pdez90 @phismith @mark-jensen @cmungall

We can focus the discussion on risk here. @pdez90: in https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio/issues/18#issuecomment-141997494, you said you would start a discussion on this, was this done? if so, please merge it with this issue. Thanks!

[pdez90]

Hi Pier,

I sent an email actually to the contributors instead of posting on github. My apologies. I should have stuck to github.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Pier Luigi Buttigieg < notifications@github.com> wrote:

@pdez90 https://github.com/pdez90 @phismith https://github.com/phismith @mark-jensen https://github.com/mark-jensen @cmungall https://github.com/cmungall

We can focus the discussion on risk here. @pdez90 https://github.com/pdez90: in #18 (comment) https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio/issues/18#issuecomment-141997494, you said you would start a discussion on this, was this done? if so, please merge it with this issue. Thanks!

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio/issues/22#issuecomment-142933552 .

Yours Sincerely, Priyanka deSouza

[pdez90]

There were no replies to my email- I dont think anyone had a chance to look at it due to the time difference, hence starting fresh here is perfect

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Priyanka deSouza <priyankadesouza@gmail.com

wrote:

Hi Pier,

I sent an email actually to the contributors instead of posting on github. My apologies. I should have stuck to github.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Pier Luigi Buttigieg < notifications@github.com> wrote:

@pdez90 https://github.com/pdez90 @phismith https://github.com/phismith @mark-jensen https://github.com/mark-jensen @cmungall https://github.com/cmungall

We can focus the discussion on risk here. @pdez90 https://github.com/pdez90: in #18 (comment) https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio/issues/18#issuecomment-141997494, you said you would start a discussion on this, was this done? if so, please merge it with this issue. Thanks!

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio/issues/22#issuecomment-142933552 .

Yours Sincerely, Priyanka deSouza

Yours Sincerely, Priyanka deSouza

[mark-jensen]

Are we saying that 'risk' would be subclass of bfo:disposition? Or that it would be defined with respect to disposition (vulnerability)? In other words, a risk process (being at risk) is one wherein an entity realizes one or more vulnerabilities.

[pbuttigieg]

In other words, a risk process (being at risk) is one wherein an entity realizes one or more vulnerabilities.

The issue is that risk is a probability that vulnerabilities will be realised. How would you express that?

[pbuttigieg]

In past discussions the framing was approximately: there is always some risk (even if vanishingly small) of the exposure (xref #21) of an entity to another which has the capacity to trigger the realisation of one or more of the first entity's innate vulnerabilities. In certain sets of circumstances (spatio-temporal location, health status) that risk increases. The entities that cause the risk to increase could be called hazards (#14). An entity can mitigate risk by changing those circumstances (relocating, shielding, etc.).

[pbuttigieg]

Are we saying that 'risk' would be subclass of bfo:disposition? Or that it would be defined with respect to disposition (vulnerability)? In other words, a risk process (being at risk) is one wherein an entity realizes one or more vulnerabilities.

As risk always exists (whether or not it is realised), treating this as a BFO:disposition is likely to work. The realisation of the risk (which can be assigned a probability on the information layer) sounds like an exposure process. Depending on the participants in the exposure process, it may or may not cause the realisation of vulnerability dispositions.

Thus the WMO DRR treatment:

Probable impacts, expressed in terms of expected loss of lives, people injured, property, livelihoods, economic activity disrupted or environmental damage. [Source: ISDR Terminology of disaster risk reduction]

We could then think along the lines of:

• risk of injury: the disposition of an organism to acquire an injury when participating in some process.

If probabilities are assigned on the data or information level, these risks-as-dispositions can be filtered by a user so only "probable" ones are represented in a given setting.

[mark-jensen]

From Informed Consent Ontology (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ICO_0000078): ‘risk’ = a disposition or the potential future harm that may arise from some present action. It is often combined or confused with the probability of an event which is seen as undesirable.

From 2009 paper on Biomedical Ethics Ontology (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725426/): ‘risk’ = a disposition that inheres in a subject whereby the subject is susceptible to physical or mental harm.

These are aligned with what you are thinking.

I think use of ‘or’ in the ICO def is a typo--perhaps they meant “a disposition for…” The BEO is better, although there’s no need to add ‘physical or mental’.

Also maybe of help: From Statistics Ontology (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/STATO_0000245): ‘relative risk’ = a measurement datum which denotes the risk of an 'event' relative to an 'exposure'. Relative risk is calculated by forming the ratio of the probability of the event occurring in the exposed group versus a the probability of this event occurring in the non-exposed group.

[pbuttigieg]

Looks like we can refine those. Do you think we need a new class or could we ask ICO if a revision is possible? On 1 Oct 2015 19:59, "Mark Jensen" notifications@github.com wrote:

From Informed Consent Ontology (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ICO_0000078 ): ‘risk’ = a disposition or the potential future harm that may arise from some present action. It is often combined or confused with the probability of an event which is seen as undesirable.

From 2009 paper on Biomedical Ethics Ontology ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725426/): ‘risk’ = a disposition that inheres in a subject whereby the subject is susceptible to physical or mental harm.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio/issues/22#issuecomment-144786519 .

[phismith]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Mark Jensen notifications@github.com wrote:

From Informed Consent Ontology (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ICO_0000078 ): ‘risk’ = a disposition or the potential future harm that may arise from some present action. It is often combined or confused with the probability of an event which is seen as undesirable.

​There is no such thing as a potential future harm And in any case the risk exists now. It is a disposition

​To Pier:​

Talking of realization of risk as an exposure process sounds too narrow. Surely many risks do not involve anything like exposure​

​to some other entity

​BS​

From 2009 paper on Biomedical Ethics Ontology (

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725426/): ‘risk’ = a disposition that inheres in a subject whereby the subject is susceptible to physical or mental harm.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio/issues/22#issuecomment-144786519 .

[mark-jensen]

I'm not sure the status of ICO. Their definition needs a fair amount of revision. And its not clear ICO is the appropriate home for 'risk' as it's more general than informed consent. Let's get a workable definition first, before contacting ICO.

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Pier Luigi Buttigieg < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Looks like we can refine those. Do you think we need a new class or could we ask ICO if a revision is possible?

[cmungall]

How will the classes created here be related to data outside the ontology - for example, columns in data tables produced for statistical purposes, headings for reports, parameters in models...?

[mark-jensen]

Excellent question. I don’t know. I hope we can acquire examples of data soon.

An example I’ve seen in the medical domain: columns containing values (1-4) for “mortality risk”. This data is output from a calculation that takes various clinical information about a patient as input (age, gender, diagnoses, procedures, severity of illness measures, etc). The result categorizes that patent into a quartile: “low, moderate, high, or extreme”. This information is about a patient’s likelihood of dying in the near future with respect to their current clinical picture. These risk assessments are used by hospitals and insurance companies to allocate resources, determine care management protocols, estimate costs, etc.

My assumption is that we will need a general term in the ontology for risk with various subclasses, such as ‘risk for death’, ‘risk for flooding’, etc. Do others agree?

It has been suggested that risk is a disposition. That entails it be realizable, something that can exist without manifestation, for which a corresponding structural change must occur in a bearer if a disposition is lost.

We are currently proposing that vulnerability is also a disposition. In one document I found the following definition: ‘vulnerability’ = a disposition of an entity to change its state in response to some perturbation. Whereas ‘vulnerability’ makes no reference to harm, ‘risk’ will need to (if I understand correctly).

It has also been suggested that ‘risk’ be defined with respect to realizing a vulnerability, perhaps in a way that allows quantifying the likelihood of that realization, perhaps by referring to exposure to hazards that precipitate the realization of vulnerabilities.

A couple possibilities immediately present: (1) ’risk’ = a disposition to realize some vulnerability that results in harm to the bearer (2) ‘risk’ = a vulnerability that when realized results in harm to the bearer (3) ‘risk’ = a disposition for its bearer to participate in some process that exposes the bearer to some hazard

Are there other options?

If I bear a ‘vulnerability to sunburn’, do I also bear the like-named risk? Be defining ‘risk’ along the lines of (3), we may avoid such a problem.

Following from above: a data point in a “mortality risk” column would be a measure (estimation) of the likelihood of a patient participating in some process resulting in their death. The data is output from a ‘mortality risk calculation process’ and is about a ‘risk of death’ disposition that inheres in the patient.

I have a couple concerns, but wait for comments.

[mickwilson]

Greetings. I attended Pier's presentation at UNEP on Monday and was invited to 'leap in' to SDGIO development so here I am. If my comments are off-track or retracing old ground then I ask in advance that you forgive the newbie.

From a UN institutional perspective, one of the major stakeholders in the terminology of risks, hazards and impacts is www.unisdr.org who maintain a terminology for harmonising discussions amongst state agencies at http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology .

I am no domain expert on these matters nor on semantics but it would seem an effort to review their use of these terms (e.g they define risk as a combination of probability and consequence) both as a means for encouraging their contribution to SDGIO (say, helping them to start evolving the vocabulary towards an ontology) but also for starting to show that this is not a UNEP-only exercise.

I have similar through ts re WMO and WHO but have not yet checked their status regarding risk-related vocabularies.

[mark-jensen]

From WMO- ‘risk’ = Probable impacts, expressed in terms of expected loss of lives, people injured, property, livelihoods, economic activity disrupted or environmental damage. [Source: ISDR Terminology of disaster risk reduction]

From ISDR- ‘risk’ = The combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences.

Comment: This definition closely follows the definition of the ISO/IEC Guide 73. The word “risk” has two distinctive connotations: in popular usage the emphasis is usually placed on the concept of chance or possibility, such as in “the risk of an accident”; whereas in technical settings the emphasis is usually placed on the consequences, in terms of “potential losses” for some particular cause, place and period. It can be noted that people do not necessarily share the same perceptions of the significance and underlying causes of different risks.

From ISO- ‘risk’ = effect of uncertainty on objectives Note 1 to entry: An effect is a deviation from the expected — positive and/or negative. Note 2 to entry: Objectives can have different aspects (such as financial, health and safety, and environmental goals) and can apply at different levels (such as strategic, organization-wide, project, product and process). Note 3 to entry: Risk is often characterized by reference to potential events (3.5.1.3) and consequences (3.6.1.3), or a combination of these. Note 4 to entry: Risk is often expressed in terms of a combination of the consequences of an event (including changes in circumstances) and the associated likelihood (3.6.1.1) of occurrence. Note 5 to entry: Uncertainty is the state, even partial, of deficiency of information related to, understanding or knowledge of, an event, its consequence, or likelihood.

From WHO- ‘risk’ = 1. An evaluation of the probability of occurrence and the magnitude of the consequences of any given hazard, i.e. how likely is a hazard and what consequences will it have? (Inter-Agency Contingency Planning Guidelines for Humanitarian Assistance 2001). 2. The risk of a disaster is the probability of a disaster occurring. The evaluation of a risk includes vulnerability assessment and impact prediction taking into account thresholds that define acceptable risk for a given society.

[pbuttigieg]

@mickwilson Many thanks for the links and input. These will be very useful in mapping out these semantics.

[pbuttigieg]

My assumption is that we will need a general term in the ontology for risk with various subclasses, such as ‘risk for death’, ‘risk for flooding’, etc. Do others agree?

I agree. This looks similar to the treatment of exposure in #21, and will be fairly straightforward for users to apply. It also gels with many of the defs added above (e.g. ISO Note 3).

In this mode, we can attribute a risk to a hazard and a risk to the consequences of that hazard. For example, risk of flooding and then risk of drowning, risk of property damage, etc. We can link the risks of 'consequences' associated with a given hazard to the risk of the hazard itself. This is a good example of ontological unpacking.

We are currently proposing that vulnerability is also a disposition. In one document I found the following definition: ‘vulnerability’ = a disposition of an entity to change its state in response to some perturbation. Whereas ‘vulnerability’ makes no reference to harm, ‘risk’ will need to (if I understand correctly).

In general, yes, risk links to some sort of negative outcome. Like vulnerability, however, it doesn't have to. Looking at the definitions above, this uncertainty seems typical. I'm unsure on how to resolve this.

[pbuttigieg]

I'll create a risk class and a subclass risk of flooding with some draft definitions. We can edit it as needed, based on this thread's development.

[pbuttigieg]

How will the classes created here be related to data outside the ontology - for example, columns in data tables produced for statistical purposes, headings for reports, parameters in models...?

@cmungall I think this will be similar to the medical case, but concern the risk of flooding, risk of landslide and other such processes. The class should be general enough to deal with risks such as those of unemployment, disenfranchisement, and the like.

[pbuttigieg]

Perhaps:

risk: The disposition of an entity to encounter one or more hazards and, as a result, to realise one or more of its vulnerabilities.

A human's risk of drowning is increased should they be surrounded by water in a water body, which has a hazard disposition. It is even higher should they have nothing to mitigate the hazardous effects of the water (e.g. SCUBA equipment): realising their vulnerability towards drowning is that much closer.

The hazard must be declared as well as the vulnerabilities relevant to the entity. For example, a deep lake is a hazard (i.e. has_disposition hazard disposition) to some entity with a vulnerability towards drowning, a cell which has lost the ability to sense its surroundings is a hazard if it is part of an organism that has a vulnerability towards cancer.

The realisation of vulnerabilities is a way we can connect to the 'impacts' in the WHO, WMO, ISO, and ISDR definitions. If we have a high concentration of entities which all have a vulnerability towards drowning in some site, then the population-level risk of drowning (@rlwalls2008 an example of summation over individual risks) can be classed as high, modulated by the probability that a corresponding hazard (e.g. a flood) would manifest. Naturally, the probabilities themselves are handled on the data layer.

Thus: risk of drowning: The risk that an entity encounters one or more drowning hazards and realises its vulnerability towards drowning.

Where "drowning hazards" can be a defined class filled by inference: any entity that has a "drowning hazard" disposition.

@phsmith One thing that doesn't sit too well is having a "disposition to encounter" something. Is that pushing the disposition definition too far?

[mark-jensen]

This new version is much better than the current draft. I agree that usage of 'encountered' is not ideal. It is shorthand for participation in a process---one where hazards are present.

I'd modify 'risk' = a disposition to participate in some process which (1) exposes the bearer to a one or more hazards and (2) realizes one or more of the bearer's vulnerabilities.

If I recall correctly, we are working on 'exposure' too? If so, the perhaps modify accordingly: "..participate in some exposure process.."

@phismith Thoughts?

[pbuttigieg]

I'd modify 'risk' = a disposition to participate in some process which (1) exposes the bearer to a one or more hazards and (2) realizes one or more of the bearer's vulnerabilities.

I understand where you're coming from; however, a disposition to participate in a process still doesn't sit well. Perhaps a slight re-phrasing will help:

risk = a disposition of a bearer to realise one or more of its vulnerabilities when participating in a process which exposes the bearer to one or more corresponding hazards.

This puts less emphasis on the participation (which must still happen) and seems more tuned to things like the "risk of drowning": the risk of realising a vulnerability towards drowning when participating in any process which exposes the bearer to an entity with drowning hazard disposition.

If I recall correctly, we are working on 'exposure' too? If so, the perhaps modify accordingly: "..participate in some exposure process.."

We are and should turn our attention there soon. I think we're settled enough on risk and hazard for the moment.

[phismith]

I think Pier's

risk = a disposition of a bearer to realise one or more of its vulnerabilities when participating in a process which exposes the bearer to one or more corresponding hazards.

misleadingly places the vulnerabilities in the foreground; I think the risk could be there for two subjects with different vulnerabilities; thus I prefer

risk = a disposition of a bearer to participate in a process which exposes the bearer to one or more corresponding hazards.

We can infer vulnerabilities in some cases. (But we may have data about risks without having data about vulnerabilities.) BS

[ramonawalls]

I need to give this more thought (too much to digest at first read), but the Wikipedia articles on risk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk) and risk assessment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment) provide some useful insight here. We should also look at statistical treatments of risk (some of which is already capture in the comments).

[pbuttigieg]

risk = a disposition of a bearer to realise one or more of its vulnerabilities when participating in a process which exposes the bearer to one or more corresponding hazards. misleadingly places the vulnerabilities in the foreground; I think the risk could be there for two subjects with different vulnerabilities...

Yes, the subjects may have different vulnerabilities, but I would think they must have vulnerabilities that correspond to the hazards they are exposed to in order to be 'at risk'. A rock has no risk of drowning as it has no corresponding vulnerability.

...; thus I prefer risk = a disposition of a bearer to participate in a process which exposes the bearer to one or more corresponding hazards.

here, what the hazards correspond to is not clear (in the previous version, they corresponded to some of the subject's vulnerabilities)

[cfrancois7]

In #https://github.com/pato-ontology/pato/issues/67#issuecomment-256129670 I made a comment about how SDGIO represents risk and vulnerability.

In terms of BFO approach, the disposition is:

realization occurs when and because this bearer is in some special physical circumstances, & this realization occurs in virtue of the bearer’s physical make-up

The vulnerability as well as the risk are not something that are realized through a process. Something is or is not vulnerable, something is or is not under a risk regarding a threat or a danger. So is it a quality ? No because it is not expressed by the material entity itself, it depends of the environment and the attributed value by humans. However, impacted by something is a disposition, which is expressed through a process/event.

So, the vulnerability is much more the assessment (iao:data item) of the degree to which the material entity is impacted (sensitivity) due to its intrinsic qualities in the process (classified as hazard event for this material entity) when the material entity and the process share a certain spatiotemporal condition (exposure). This measurement could be complete with the same measurement but with adaptive capacity. Thus, the risk is the assessment of the likelihood of this process to impact the material entity.

• vulnerability/risk data item vulnerability IAO:is about the disposition to be impacted risk IAO:is about the disposition to be impacted
• vulnerability assessment process vulnerability assessment _OBI:is_specific_outputof vulnerability assessing vulnerability assessingBFO:has participant material entity. vulnerability assessing BFO:specifically depends on at some time process hazard event iao:denotes process
• risk assessment process risk assessment _OBI:is_specific_outputof risk assessing risk assessing BFO:has input vulnerability assessment. risk assessing BFO:has input event probability
• hazard event probability event probability IAO:is about temporal region of event.

REF:

• IPCC AR5
• http://www.climateadapt.asia/upload/events/files/4f7aad3c2d094Manila_Observatory_2.pdf
• MONITOR project
• http://iswc2011.semanticweb.org/fileadmin/iswc/Papers/Research_Paper/07/70310528.pdf (interesting paper but a wrong approach to fit BFO standard).

[phismith]

The problem with a view along these lines is, I think, that it would imply that risks do not exist unless corresponding risk assessments are made. This seems wrong. BS

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:08 PM, cfrancois7 notifications@github.com wrote:

In #pato-ontology/pato#67 (comment) https://github.com/pato-ontology/pato/issues/67#issuecomment-256129670 I made a comment about how SDGIO represents risk and vulnerability.

In terms of BFO approach, the disposition is:

realization occurs when and because this bearer is in some special physical circumstances, & this realization occurs in virtue of the bearer’s physical make-up

The vulnerability as well as the risk are not something that are realized through a process. Something is or is not vulnerable, something is or is not under a risk regarding a threat or a danger. So is it a quality ? No because it is not expressed by the material entity itself, it depends of the environment and the attributed value by humans. However, impacted by something is a disposition, which is expressed through a process/event.

So, the vulnerability is much more the assessment (iao:data item) of the degree to which the material entity is impacted (sensitivity) due to its intrinsic qualities in the process (classified as hazard event for this material entity) when the material entity and the process share a certain spatiotemporal condition (exposure). This measurement could be complete with the same measurement but with adaptive capacity. Thus, the risk is the assessment of the likelihood of this process to impact the material entity.

-

vulnerability/risk data item vulnerability IAO:is about the disposition to be impacted risk IAO:is about the disposition to be impacted

vulnerability assessment process vulnerability assessment _OBI:is_specific_outputof vulnerability assessing vulnerability assessingBFO:has participant material entity. vulnerability assessing BFO:specifically depends on at some time process hazard event iao:denotes process

risk assessment process risk assessment _OBI:is_specific_outputof risk assessing risk assessing BFO:has input vulnerability assessment. risk assessing BFO:has input event probability

hazard event probability event probability IAO:is about temporal region of event.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio/issues/22#issuecomment-256358452, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH6qN3PunEXwFZG2loc24YS4hW1ybi4aks5q317ZgaJpZM4GDHee .

[cfrancois7]

In the approach I proposed, yes, the risk doesn't exist before the assessment is realized. In essence, the risk is the output of the assessment, given in quality (low/medium/high level) or quantify (probability) data. The definition of the risk I consider is the typical definition used in the geography field, and also the definition used by IPCC: a probability/likelihood of a damage realized by a process on material entity.

The problem with the vulnerability as a disposition is the vulnerability depends on the duration on which we consider it. For instance, the building where I'm currently writing my lines is sensitive to flooding, but is not vulnerable regarding flooding for the next decades (we are far from the river), but surely will be in fifty years (riverbed is growing). The vulnerability as well as the risk arises with the time just because the exposure arise (spatially) as well as the probability of the event (rising waters) to happen too.

A disposition that is function of the probability of the process/event to happen or of the duration of the time window we consider bothers me. A disposition that depends only of condition realized by a process, i.e. be impacted/damaged, much more interesting. The information about the probability to happen is defined in the process description and not in the disposition. Thus, the vulnerability and the risk information is attached (is about) the disposition or the material entity.

[phismith]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:38 PM, cfrancois7 notifications@github.com wrote:

In the approach I proposed, yes, the risk doesn't exist before the assessment is realized. In essence, the risk is the output of the assessment, given in quality (low/medium/high level) or quantify (probability) data. The definition of the risk I consider is the typical definition used in the geography field, and also the definition used by IP

​then we are talking about the difference between subjective and objective probability

suppose there is a dam, the structure of which is gradually becoming weaker; you know this, and so for you the probably of the dam bursting is very high; someone else does not know this, and for that person the probability is very low

I would say -- being a defender of objective probability -- that the ​

​risk is the same; and I think this corresponds to ordinary people's use of the term 'risk'​ ​

BS

CC: a probability/likelihood of a damage realized by a process on material entity.

The problem with the vulnerability as a disposition is the vulnerability depends on the duration on which we consider it. For instance, the building where I'm currently writing my lines is sensitive to flooding, but is not vulnerable regarding flooding for the next decades (we are far from the river), but surely will be in fifty years (riverbed is growing). The vulnerability as well as the risk arises with the time just because the exposure arise (spatially) as well as the probability of the event (rising waters) to happen too.

A disposition that is function of the probability of the process/event to happen or of the duration of the time window we consider bothers me. A disposition that depends only of condition realized by a process, i.e. be impacted/damaged, much more interesting. The information about the probability to happen is defined in the process description and not in the disposition. Thus, the vulnerability and the risk information is attached (is about) the disposition or the material entity.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio/issues/22#issuecomment-256422563, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH6qNzScSx8VI4R__imth9SI-hjpaWCgks5q35AKgaJpZM4GDHee .

[cfrancois7]

Ok, I'm thinking how to converge my approach and yours. I'll share some comments. Otherwise, how in that case to deal with the time dimension of the vulnerability/risk I raised above? For example, the IPCC as well as many risk/vulnerability studies released different results of risks in function of the time windows considered.

[cfrancois7]

I re-thought my approach about vulnerability and risk. I agree a material entity has the disposition at some time to be vulnerable to something, e.g. be vulnerable to a flooding (exposure x sensitivity to the process).

In BFO approach:

To change a disposition (e.g. the vulnerability) you have to change physically your material entity.

On this, I have a question. Has the physical change to be intrinsic only? Or Is an extrinsic change is consider as a physical change? Indeed, the vulnerability change in function of the spatiotemporal region of the material entity. I'm clearly very vulnerable and more vulnerable in the space void or in a volcano regarding hazard event than on my chair but I'm intrinsically the same.

However, my point is to change the risk it is enough to mitigate/suppress the trigger causes of the hazard event/process without change physically (intrinsically or extrinsically) your material entity. For instance, with the dam, create a upstream deviation of the river to ease the pressure on the dam. => nothing change physically in the dam, the vulnerability of the dam is unchanged but the risk changed.

I still argue that the risk is a measurement (qualitative/quantitative) that translates the likelihood of the condition needed to realize this disposition (vulnerability) to happen. I would be glad to discuss on these points above.

More basic/standard references for a more common use: Risk on wikipedia Risk for the Government of Canada

[phismith]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:08 AM, cfrancois7 notifications@github.com wrote:

I re-thought my approach about vulnerability and risk. I agree a material entity has the disposition at some time to be vulnerable to something, e.g. be vulnerable to a flooding (exposure x sensitivity to the process).

In BFO approach:

To change a disposition (e.g. the vulnerability) you have to change physically your material entity.

On this, I have a question. Has the physical change to be intrinsic only? Or Is an extrinsic change is consider as a physical change? Indeed, the vulnerability change in function of the spatiotemporal region of the material entity. I'm clearly very vulnerable in the space void or in a volcano regarding hazard event than on my chair but I'm intrinsically the same.

​we discuss this sort of question here http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/Functions-in-BFO.pdf​ (in discussing functions, which are a subcategory of dispositions) clearly the vulnerability ​of X is (in many cases) not an attribute of X alone, but an attribute of some larger whole in which X is a part; it is this larger whole in which the disposition (risk) inheres, If a new vulnerability of this kind comes into existence then there has to be a physical change in this larger whole. Such a change can occur without any change in knowledge -- hence again, risk cannot be reduced to subjective probability

However, my point is to change the risk it is enough to mitigate/suppress the trigger causes of the hazard event/process without change physically (intrinsically or extrinsically) your material entity. For instance, with the dam, create a upstream deviation of the river to ease the pressure on the dam. => nothing change physically in the dam, the vulnerability of the dam is unchanged but the risk changed.

I still argue that the risk is a measurement (qualitative/quantitative) that translates the likelihood of the condition needed to realize this disposition (vulnerability) to happen. I would be glad to discuss on these points above.

​we can measure the risk; therefore the risk cannot itself be a measurement BS​

More basic/standard references for a more common use: Risk on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment Risk for the Government of Canada https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/hsprograms/hazard_risk.html

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SDG-InterfaceOntology/sdgio/issues/22#issuecomment-256491864, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AH6qNyXOO5aKplYrWO67nwQsNpIlqedfks5q389rgaJpZM4GDHee .

[cfrancois7]

Thanks for your paper. I am quite convinced by your arguments. I can say something has disposition at some time to be at risk if the physical change that leads to change the disposition is about the material entity OR the larger whole. In fact, I already thought in this way for function class. I'll correct my approach. Maybe I'll definitively use the SDGI-Ontology.