Neuron example for having vs. playing role is not an example of a role

[zhengj2007]

From hoga...@gmail.com on January 11, 2013 15:47:03

Anatomical and physiological processes as such are not realizations of roles (note that the examples of roles in the section preceding this example give no anatomical or physiological examples, which we see as correct). Thus, whatever pyramidal neurons are doing in lieu of the absence of some process that stellate (not stellar) neurons typically participate in, they are not taking over the "role" of those stellate neurons.

Furthermore, we were unable to find easily online any more information about this physiological phenomenon. And thus it is hard to dissect ontologically what is really going on. Is there a reference for this statement? Kandel and Schwartz perhaps?

We urge the removal of this example from the reference document.

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=137

[zhengj2007]

From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on January 11, 2013 13:39:50

I concur on this. I believe its classification as a role stems from Barry's definition as something "optional". Here's the text:

ELUCIDATION: b is a role means: b is a realizable entity & b exists because there is some single bearer that is in some special physical, social, or institutional set of circumstances in which this bearer does not have to be & b is not such that, if it ceases to exist, then the physical make-up of the bearer is thereby changed. [061-001]

I would rather it be that the case "exists because there is some special physical .. circumstances" was removed. In part, I don't know what makes some physical circumstances "special", whereas I have at least a guess of what that means in the other cases.

The other word used to describe these are "externally-grounded" as opposed to internally grounded. While this sounds like a clear distinction I've had trouble, in practice, being very confident in my assessment of whether one or the other obtains.

Is your suggestion to remove the example related to the issue I have, or is it because the background paper is not cited?

If the example were recast as an example of function would you think it correct? As disposition?

Thanks, Alan

[zhengj2007]

From MBrochhausen@gmail.com on January 11, 2013 13:48:53

I think the example should be deleted from the section where it is now: page 58 the surrounding of role-playing vs. role_having.

It looks more like a disposition to me. It might be a function, but in order to decide on that, I'd need the background information about the phenomenon the example is referring to.

Thanks, Mathias