search

infectious-disease-ontology-extensions / Fork-From-IDOCore

1 stars 0 forks source link

New subclasses for infectious disposition #1

Closed PhiBabs935 closed 4 years ago

PhiBabs935 commented 4 years ago

What got me thinking about adding new subclasses of infectious disposition was the term 'infectious human pathogen', defined as: A pathogen with a capability to infect human hosts. This suggests a distinction between the capability to infect humans, as opposed to only having the capability to infect non-human animals.

I was thinking we could add a term like (though I am not sure about the label): human infectious disposition = An infectious disposition that is the capability to become part of a disorder in a host of the Species Homo Sapiens. (This is modelled on the definition of 'primary infectious disposition', and I also plan to use its OWL definition as a model) (Alternatively, we could just say "become part of a disorder in a human host", but make sure that Homo Sapiens, which is a term imported in IDO, is included in the OWL definition)

Then we could also add a term for a capability to only infect non-human animals, something like: "An infectious disposition to become part of a disorder only in non-human organisms" [Not sure what would be a good label for this]

But then the question is, what about the typical case of pathogens that are capable of infecting both human and non-human hosts? In this case, would the capability be distinguishable within the relevant pathogens--would coronavirus's capability to infect humans be distinct from its capability to infect a tiger? I guess this might have to do with how fine grained the BFO notion of capability is (I asked Barry about it).

Of course, if we add 'human infectious disposition' we would then define 'infectious human pathogen' in terms of it. Likewise, we would need a term for pathogens that can only infect non-humans (defined in terms of the relevant disposition).

PhiBabs935 commented 4 years ago

Though, we may want to avoid using the word 'capability' as it is tied to the bearer's interests, or what is good for the bearer, and many pathogens (like viruses) don't have interests. (Or, at least on the BFO understanding of capabilities.)

PhiBabs935 commented 4 years ago

After conferring with Barry, I think that we should just use the term disposition for now and avoid terms like 'ability' or 'capability' when it comes to terms like 'infectious disposition' which apply to viruses.

So, human infectious disposition = An infectious disposition that is the disposition to become part of a disorder in a host of the Species Homo Sapiens.

johnbeve commented 4 years ago

Agreed, I'll update accordingly. Thanks for this!