Definition of disorder in OWL file not same as in OGMS paper

[alanruttenberg]

The definition given in the OWL file is: "A material entity which is clinically abnormal and part of an extended organism. Disorders are the physical basis of disease. "

The definition given in the paper is: "A causally relatively isolated combination of physical components that is (a) clinically abnormal and (b) maximal, in the sense that it is not a part of some larger such combination."

Applying the different definitions will result in different conclusions about what would be classified as a disorder. (I can elaborate if desired)

I have not reviewed other definitions in the OWL paper, but I think they should be checked and fixed where they are not the same as the definition source says.

[BAevermann]

We will discuss during our January call. And also these changes will need to be discussed in the manuscript.

[pfabry]

On a related note, may we suggest to add an elucidation annotation providing the definition of "clinically abnormal" as presented in the paper?

[addiehl]

Keep in mind that the paper is not the Word of God in regards to how these classes are defined in OGMS, just a start that others have built upon.

I agree that a proper definition of "clinical abnormal" would be useful.