chronic disease course not scattered temporally

[GoogleCodeExporter]

So disease course not process aggregate.
In addition it should be made clear what the theory of realization of disease 
is.

(at instance level)
Is there a single realization of a disease?
Is every disease course the realization of a disease? A single disease?
Was the intention in making it aggregate to indicate spatial separation but 
temporal co-occurance 
(disorder in joints) or temporally separate (3 flare ups of arthritis)?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 4 Sep 2009 at 11:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Isn't it the case that a process aggregate can be such that all of the 
constituent
processes in the aggregate share temporal boundaries?

Original comment by albertgo...@gmail.com on 9 Sep 2009 at 3:49

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Current definition:
A processual entity that is a meriological sum of process entities and 
possesses non-connected boundaries.

So you can share a temporal boundary only if you are disconnected spatially. At 
least that's my understanding.

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 14 Sep 2009 at 1:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

It was suggested in the meeting of 1/6/2010 that all disease courses are 
processes
rather than process aggregates.  This implies that 3 flare ups of arthritis are
realized in a process that begins with the onset of the first flare up and 
continues
without temporal discontinuity until the end of the third flare up, even though 
the
patient may perceive three discontinuous periods of increased sensation.

As to a general theory of disease courses as realizations, it was suggested that
multiple diseases can share the same disease course.  This is not a biological 
issue,
but rather it is inherited by the fact that two dispositions can be realized by 
the
same process (e.g., a vase breaking is a realization of its fragility and its
disposition to make a loud noise when dropped). 

Original comment by albertgo...@gmail.com on 6 Jan 2010 at 7:56

• Changed state: Started

[GoogleCodeExporter]

processes are completely connected in BFO, both spatially and temporally. 
Therefore an arthritic flare up in which  
a joint in the knuckle and and a joint in the toe are involved would not be a 
bfo:process even if over a 
contiguous temporal interval.

In my view the BFO process class should be deprecated because it is only rarely 
applicable. OBI switched to using 
only Processual entities. See http://groups.google.com/group/bfo-
discuss/browse_thread/thread/1a70ada6a0fbb3d8/6f65f7e7e3524534?#6f65f7e7e3524534

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 7 Jan 2010 at 6:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Per Alan's comment, I believe we should mirror OBI's strategy and make 'disease 
course' into a 'processual entity'.  This will allow us to better handle 
different 
subtypes like 'chronic disease course'.  

Original comment by albertgo...@gmail.com on 15 Jan 2010 at 6:46

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I am somewhat confused by the different classes... What about process boundary?
If I want to represent the onset of the first flare up I believe I can say that 
it is
a process boundary (definition:A processual entity [span:ProcessualEntity] that 
is
the fiat or bona fide instantaneous temporal process boundary.).

What would be the onset of the second flare up? Can you say that arthritis is a
processual entity, while each of the flare ups (eg knuckle and toe) are 
processes,
with their own boundary?

If I understand the above, you are saying that as chronic diseases are not 
scattered
temporaly, they are processual entities. They therefore have to happen during 
one
connected temporal region (as opposed to a scattered temporal region). 
How do you link each of those:
- processual entities and connected temporal region
- onset of process and temporal instant?

Original comment by mcour...@gmail.com on 15 Jan 2010 at 11:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by albertgo...@gmail.com on 29 Jan 2010 at 11:32

• Changed state: Fixed