Representing dispositions

Abstract

Dispositions and tendencies feature significantly in the biomedical domain and therefore in representations of knowledge of that domain. They are not only important for specific applications like an infectious disease ontology, but also as part of a general strategy for modelling knowledge about molecular interactions. But the task of representing dispositions in some formal ontological systems is fraught with several problems, which are partly due to the fact that Description Logics can only deal well with binary relations. The paper will discuss some of the results of the philosophical debate about dispositions, in order to see whether the formal relations needed to represent dispositions can be broken down to binary relations. Finally, we will discuss problems arising from the possibility of the absence of realizations, of multi-track or multi-trigger dispositions and offer suggestions on how to deal with them.

An ontological analysis of medical Bayesian indicators of performance

“…IT ). Such an analysis would raise interesting theoretical questions, as instances of D Se IT,M can exist even if no instance of M or IT do exist - we therefore face here issues similar to the ones addressed by [20] and [21]. …”

“…We will use Röhl & Jansen's model of disposition [20] in BFO, which associates to every instance of disposition one or several instances of realizations, and one or several instances of triggers (a trigger is the specific process that can lead to a realization occurring). In this model, the fragility of a glass is a disposition of the glass to break (the breaking process is the realization) when it undergoes some kind of stress (the process of undergoing such a stress is the trigger); this disposition inheres in the glass.…”

“…15[15] assigned a probability to a triplet ( d , T , R ) rather than to a disposition d , because it had to take into account dispositions that may have several classes of triggers or realizations (that is, multi-trigger and multi-track dispositions [20]). However, in the present situation, d Se g ,M is simple-trigger and simple-track: all its triggers are instances of T Se g  , and all its realizations are instances of R Se g , M .…”

Mechanisms in biomedical ontology

“…I will ignore the complications of this modal feature for now. Dispositions are very similar in this last respect and are discussed at some length in [20]. …”

“…In this fashion dispositions establish a link between continuants and processes and the fundamental connection is the following: Continuant S has disposition D for realization P and S, the bearer of the disposition, is a participant in this process P . In formal ontology, a suggestion is to treat dispositions as a kind of dependent continuants (in this respect analogous to qualities) and express the link to a process of realization by calling them "realizables" [18], see also [19] and [20] for more on this topic.…”