Please consider adding has_experiencer/experiencer_of relation

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Please consider adding a relation for has_experiencer, and/or its inverse, 
experiencer_of.  This would be used for relations in which there is some act of 
perception, but no necessary notion of control, such as olfaction or vision.  
It would be a child of the old Relation Ontology has_participant relation.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kevin.co...@gmail.com on 11 Nov 2014 at 1:30

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I suggest using "directly provides input for", or one of its siblings or close 
ancestors.

http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002413

I'm going to close this as wontfix. If none of those terms work for you, please 
reopen the issue with more details about your use case.

Original comment by ja...@overton.ca on 21 Nov 2014 at 4:17

• Changed state: WontFix

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi, 

I've followed the link that you gave and looked at "directly provides input 
for," and it doesn't seem to have any relationship to anything like 
"has_experiencer/experiencer_of."  In the absence of a definition, it's 
actually difficult to evaluate the equivalence one way or the other, but based 
on the concepts that "directly provides input for," they don't look like a very 
good match.  Has_experiencer/experiencer/of would be used for something that 
perceives, but is not necessarily in control of the action, classic examples 
being "tasting" or "noticing" something.  This seems pretty different to the 
notion of providing input for something.  It would be nice to have this 
relation in order to formalize relations between, say, mice and some stimuli.

Original comment by kevin.co...@gmail.com on 21 Nov 2014 at 4:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I agree that this is tricky without a definition, and I could be mistaken about 
the intent of the existing term. But the ancestor terms provide context:

- http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002413 directly provides input for
- http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002412 immediately causally upstream of
- http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002411 causally upstream of

These all apply to processes, so I would model perception/experience as an 
interaction of processes: some external process "directly provides input for" 
an internal perception process, where the target of the experience participates 
in the external process, and the experiencer partipates in the internal process.

Original comment by ja...@overton.ca on 21 Nov 2014 at 4:41

[GoogleCodeExporter]

...which is why you need a relation with which to tie the experiencer to the 
internal perception process, right?

Original comment by kevin.co...@gmail.com on 21 Nov 2014 at 4:49

[GoogleCodeExporter]

You can often build what you want out of smaller pieces without defining a new 
relation.

My other concern is that RO and BFO do not deal with psychological states, and 
I think that's what you're trying to get at.

If you want to push forward with this, we need to get into the details of your 
proposal so that we all understand the intent. We'd need you to propose a 
definition, parent, domain, and range for each relation.

Original comment by ja...@overton.ca on 21 Nov 2014 at 5:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I didn't mean to give the impression that I'm trying to model a psychological 
state.  

I'd be happy to provide more details.  Please let me know the format for the 
definition, as the RO concepts that I've seen don't seem to have definitions, 
either formal or in prose.

Kev

Original comment by kevin.co...@gmail.com on 24 Nov 2014 at 5:41

[GoogleCodeExporter]

"causally upstream of" and "causally related to" have definitions. The format 
doesn't matter right now. The goal is just to better understand what you want 
the relation to be.

Original comment by ja...@overton.ca on 24 Nov 2014 at 5:50

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It would be worth looking at what EMO says.

Is an experiencer always an organism (e.g. does my brain experience it, or do 
I?).

Maybe occurs_in is sufficient? If we are talking about subclasses of GO sensory 
perception then occurs_in to an organism is valid.

Or perhaps the perception leads to an experiential process, both processes 
occurring in the organism (typically, although I guess the upstream process 
could be occurring in some device).

Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com on 25 Nov 2014 at 1:41