I appreciate this note is offered ‘for information’, however I have a few questions:
a. If (i) “…Obesity is diagnosed on the basis of excess adiposity…” and (ii) SI are a long way through consulting on a novel mechanism that will support “…modelling physiological state disorders representing excesses of substance or cell types…”, what is the reason for not using this new mechanism to model ‘obesity’ (if seen as an ‘excess’ in number and size of fat cells)?
b. leaving aside a long-standing and more general concern regarding the interprets/has_interpretation modelling pattern, why are SI recommending the use of property-less observables as the targets for the ‘interprets’ aspect of the proposed solution? The suggested ‘Interprets = Body fat’ component is silent on what ‘property’ of the body fat is determined to be ‘excessive’? ‘Interprets = Distribution of body fat’ does offer the word ‘distribution’ as a possible property, but it is not clear what values such a property should take and whether ‘excessive’ is therefore a valid value.
c. Will any of the concepts discussed be published as sufficiently defined? The query…
<< 404684003 | Clinical finding |: {363714003 | Interprets | = << 248300009 | Body fat observable |, 363713009 | Has interpretation | = << 260378005 | Excessive |}
…returns a small number of released concepts, notably 248302001 |Excess subcutaneous fat| and its descendants. Would SI now expect these to classify as kinds of 414915002 |Obese (finding)|, and if so is this the intended outcome?