environmental-exposure-ontology
environmental-exposure-ontology copied to clipboard
EnvironmentOntology
exposure to violence
One way to manage this is to say that if someone is the recipient of violence then they have been exposure to violence constructed using violent behavior in NBO. To say that someone is exposed to violence in their surroundings, we could construct a "violent environment" class in ENVO. Thoughts?
I think NBO classes should be used only to model behavior performed by the annotated specimen, and ENVO to model external behavior received/exposed to..
OK, that makes sense. I feel like I've heard you say that before. Apologies, if I'm making you repeat.
I am unsure. I don't think we want to generally shadow NBO activities in ENVO but I can see the argument for doing this in special cases.
E.g. "landscape of fear" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5600181/
Also I think a term in ENVO for something like "landscape of kindness" would be delightful
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 6:36 AM Nico Matentzoglu [email protected] wrote:
Nahhh :P Not at all! Just wondering wether @pbuttigieg https://github.com/pbuttigieg also agrees!
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/EnvironmentOntology/environmental-exposure-ontology/issues/45?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAAMMOKXG5LGO4SKJK4KLR3QGZ5OXA5CNFSM4IQLDOT2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5LESVQ#issuecomment-525748566, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMONH25Q3HCWUNZU77I3QGZ5OXANCNFSM4IQLDOTQ .
I can see this happening, and of great utility to ontologies like SDGIO.
This could work with our "hazard" semantics in SDGIO: a landscape of fear would be an environmental system within which there exist processes where system components relaise hazard dispositions with increased frequency.
That would accommodate the idea that some component (continuant) must have participated in a process involving violence.
@cmungall we could use both for STAGE, actually ;) How about a "hazardous environment" and a "pleasant environment" and then I can subclass as needed?
I think making it a system is too strong? The boundaries of the landscape don't necessarily have any borders with common determinants. Unless we think this is a system 'determined by' a shark/wolf etc... but this gets even stranger for socioeconomic landscapes.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 5:13 AM Pier Luigi Buttigieg < [email protected]> wrote:
I can see this happening, and of great utility to ontologies like SDGIO.
This could work with our "hazard" semantics in SDGIO: a landscape of fear would be an environmental system within which there exist processes where system components relaise hazard dispositions with increased frequency.
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/EnvironmentOntology/environmental-exposure-ontology/issues/45?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAAMMOPKBWANNXFD23ZSQ4LQG64PJA5CNFSM4IQLDOT2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5OIO5A#issuecomment-526157684, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOJXLTGOP3MA56S3DNDQG64PJANCNFSM4IQLDOTQ .
Yep - but let's not build in anthropocentrism to ENVO. These will always be relative to one organisms' or population of organisms' perspective.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 7:49 AM diatomsRcool [email protected] wrote:
@cmungall https://github.com/cmungall we could use both for STAGE, actually ;) How about a "hazardous environment" and a "pleasant environment" and then I can subclass as needed?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/EnvironmentOntology/environmental-exposure-ontology/issues/45?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAAMMOO6KLNEFR72ZSUPGELQG7OXBA5CNFSM4IQLDOT2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5OX5HQ#issuecomment-526220958, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMON3I4PKROUGL5N55ATQG7OXBANCNFSM4IQLDOTQ .
Should I go ahead and to a PR or is there a more appropriate way forward?
I think making it a system is too strong?
Is that because a system is a subclass of material entity? What about making them subclasses of environmental zone?
yes:
def: "A site which has its extent determined by the presence or influence of one or more components of an environmental system or the processes occurring therein." []
zone seems ideal
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 9:53 AM diatomsRcool [email protected] wrote:
I think making it a system is too strong?
Is that because a system is a subclass of material entity? What about making them subclasses of environmental zone?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/EnvironmentOntology/environmental-exposure-ontology/issues/45?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAAMMOMJPMWVBIOMZKMHHODQH2I7DA5CNFSM4IQLDOT2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5Y3DGI#issuecomment-527544729, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOJBKPN7AU4T5A54DS3QH2I7DANCNFSM4IQLDOTQ .