Subclass relation between Poison Artifact Function and Damaging Artifact Function might be mistaken

[gregfowlerphd]

According to the definition of Damaging Artifact Function, such a function must be realized in a process in which the structural integrity of an entity is impaired. Now I might be wrong here, but it would seem that some poisons do not act so as to impair the structural integrity of a living thing (at least given the definitions of "structural integrity" I've been able to find). Consider, for instance, a poison whose effect is to gradually slow a person's heart rate until it completely stops. Such a poison might leave the person's structure entirely unaffected.

Of course, depending on the intent behind the Poison Artifact Function class, this might not be a problem. For instance, if only some poisons (i.e., those that do impair structural integrity) are intended to have a Poison Artifact Function, then everything's fine. However, if all poisons are intended to have a Poison Artifact Function, then (assuming the considerations of the previous paragraph are correct) Poison Artifact Function ought no be a subclass of Damaging Artifact Function.

[cameronmore]

This definitely needs to be fixed, I'm just thinking of whether there's a good parent class for both damaging and poisoning or we expand damaging.

I would think that damaging could definitely include poisoning. I wouldn't want to get into harming, that has too much philosophical baggage and isn't what we mean.

[cameronmore]

Damaging = physical and/or structural impairment to a material entity which may cause a loss or decrease of disposition of that material entity.

Does 'physical' go far enough? Or adding 'may cause a loss or decrease of disposition' cover it?

Just throwing out ideas.

[gregfowlerphd]

I think something like your proposal might be on the right track, @cameronmore.