-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
NTR: U.S. veteran role #205
Comments
Proposed revision with reasons below: "Deontic role that inheres in a person if that person (i) served in the active military service of the United States, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable, or (ii) is a Reservist or member of the United States National Guard called to Federal active duty or disabled from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty or while in training status." Proposed Changes:
|
FWIW, I think the definition reads fine w/o "if". I.e., "A deontic role that inheres in a person who/that (1) served ...." The canonical form of a genus-differentia definitions is
I'm not sure that
As a veteran myself I am not aware of any "normative expectations" that have been placed on me in this regard. A better parent may be
IMHO, this better captures that a person's status as a veteran rests on the interactions with society, and not on obligations that a veteran is obligated to fulfill. |
@wdduncan Whether or not someone bears a veteran role makes a difference to “the normative expectations that other agents within a social context have concerning how that agent should behave.” For example we have the normative expectation that non-veterans will not attempt to access health care services that are intended only for veterans, but that is not the case for veterans. But you’re correct that it is realized by processes that count as social interactions, so your suggestion to use ‘role in human social processes’ as the parent also makes sense. Presumably there’s a great deal of overlap between deontic roles and human social roles. I think either works here. |
Yes, there very well maybe a great deal of overlap :) FWIW, I still think |
I'm leaning more in favor of |
@dillerm It sounds to me like you describing obligations (i.e., deontic roles) that the doctor's, nurses, and other VA personal (and government organizations) have concerning how they are supposed to care for veterans. I agree that seeking care at the VA would realize a patient's veteran's |
Yes, I think you are thinking of the more conventional definition of 'deontic' whereas I am using d-acts' definition for |
I think this is an institutional role, that comes with deontic roles.
Remember that part of how d-acts works now is that there multiple levels of
roles.
Just my 2 cents. Happy to get on a call about it.
Best,
Mathias
…On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 1:02 PM Matthew Diller ***@***.***> wrote:
Yes, I think you are thinking of the more conventional definition of
'deontic' whereas I am using d-acts' definition for deontic role
<https://ontobee.org/ontology/OMRSE?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0021008>.
The veteran isn't obligated to seek out care at a VA health facility, but
they do have a claim to those services by virtue of bearing such a role. In
d-acts, claimant role
<https://ontobee.org/ontology/OMRSE?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0021013>
is used to represent a claim and, like Hohfeldian claims, necessarily has a
corresponding duty, represented by duty holder role
<https://ontobee.org/ontology/OMRSE?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0021016>.
Both of these classes are subclasses of deontic role.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#205 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLXZBJXDSFF4Z3SQYALXDAGVFANCNFSM6AAAAAAVXAO6QE>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
The definition from
Perhaps I'm being a fuddy duddy and being overly focused on the part of the definition that says "how that agent should behave". Again, I am not aware of any such normative expectations of behaviors for U.S. veterans. To me, at least, this akin to saying that former firemen or former teachers have normative expectations on how they are supposed to behave. I'm not familiar with Hohfeldian claims. From I found on the internet, they look very legalistic in nature. So, how do we break out of this back and forth? Perhaps you can redefine Happy to have a call :) We can arrange over email if you wish. |
Hah! I am delighted to have your input! :)
Yes, we agree. I was saying that I think My comment was in response to the @CDowland and @dillerm who I think are arguing that it should be a type of BTW, I couldn't find |
I think institutional role has been defined in a slide deck by Neil Otte. I
can probably dig that up. I should probably go into OMRSE.
…On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 3:36 PM Bill Duncan ***@***.***> wrote:
Sorry, I probably should have stayed out of this debate.
Hah! I am delighted to have your input! :)
Bill. I thought you were saying that U.S. veteran is not a deontic role?
If so, I wholeheartedly agree.
Yes, we agree. I was saying that I think U.S. veteran is not a deontic
role. Sorry, if I did not communicate this better.
My comment was in response to the @CDowland <https://github.com/CDowland>
and @dillerm <https://github.com/dillerm> who I think are arguing that it
should be a type of deontic role. The justification being that it is akin
to claimant role. I can see how a veteran could have a claimant role if
they were filing a claim against the Veterans Administration (or similar
organization). But, I don't think such a possibility necessarily entails
that U.S. Veteran role is a type of deontic role, unless (of course) you
redefine things.
BTW, I couldn't find institutional role. Is it defined somewhere?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#205 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLT6ZRRFASRL6DDPT3TXDAYU7ANCNFSM6AAAAAAVXAO6QE>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Claimant roles don't require "filing a claim." The definition:
For example, if the local movie theater offers discounts to veterans, then an employee (B) is required to give the discount (C) to a veteran (A). In any case, the fact that claimant roles are deontic roles would seem to undermine the concern about whether deontic roles must entail obligations of the bearer. |
Good point. I was trying to provide some context about when a veteran would become a claimant.
This is an obligation the theater takes on and (from what I understand of Being a veteran (i.e., bearing a |
Interesting. The existence of such claims and associated processes are what led me to think of veteran status as role. If we distinguish those claimant roles from the veteran role, then what processes could realize the veteran role? |
I seriously doubt this stuff is going away anytime soon.
[image: Screenshot 2023-04-25 at 7.20.49 PM.png]
…On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 6:58 PM Clint Dowland ***@***.***> wrote:
Being a veteran (i.e., bearing a U.S. veteran role) does not necessarily
require that there exists any organizations that are obligated to provide
services to them. In other words, all claimant roles that are created for
veterans could cease to exist, and still someone could be a veteran.
Interesting. The existence of such claims and associated processes are
what led me to think of veteran status as role. If we distinguish those
claimant roles from the veteran role, then what processes could realize the
veteran role?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#205 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJR55WGHNFY5ESEZHKYHULXDBJIVANCNFSM6AAAAAAVXAO6QE>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Thanking a veteran for their service. |
So, here are some thoughts: Veteran's claims are heterogenous in their origin and in who the duty holder is. The these as examples: Veteran Jane Doe's claim to a free lunch at Bernie's Burger Shack on Veterans Day Veteran John Doe's claim to aa reduced ticket at the Waning Light Arkansas State Park. Veterans Jane and John Doe's claim to receive treatment at a VA medical provider. All these are separate claims. They are not the veteran role, but they are linked to it. So, how does on realize a veteran role. Some things that might have not been aware of that underlies Neil's and my treatment of these role: One action can realize more than 1 role! Here is the draft definition of institutional role: " Now, let's think about realizing institutional roles. My institutional role at UAMS is professor. Associated with that institutional role is a deontic role that obliges me to teach at a level of 10% of my time in the DBMI programs. If a student from another program comes to me and asks to learn method x, I will probably set up time to teach that student. This will not realize my duty holder role to teach in our program. But it realizes my institutional role as professor. I don't know a lot about veterans outside the VA health aspect. But I assume that veterans can apply and maybe reapply for a badge or card or pass that verifies their status as a veteran, this application would be an example of the veteran role being realized. Let me know whether that makes sense. |
Thanks @mbrochhausen !
Right! I like the "institutional" approach. |
@mbrochhausen Great explanation. I found the example at the end particularly helpful, as it shows why it should be considered a role even while distinguished from the associated claimant roles. (I guess there may also be a claimant role there as well, as the bearer has a claim to the card; but in the other examples the card would be needed to verify the role, while the role is the prerequisite for the process of obtaining the card). Thanks! |
So should we implement |
That would be awesome! But the definition needs some work....
Best,
Mathias
…On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 12:25 PM Matthew Diller ***@***.***> wrote:
So should we implement institutional role in OMRSE? I know @mbrochhausen
<https://github.com/mbrochhausen> has already suggested doing so. I don't
have any objections to the proposed definition for it.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#205 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLXASVZSJCE6ACON6STXEE7PVANCNFSM6AAAAAAVXAO6QE>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
On the call today (2023-05-03), we agreed to modify the
Questions to consider:
|
I think the restriction is necessary for properly conveying who bears that type of role. A dishonorably discharged person or a person still serving does not bear a U.S. veteran role, i.e. does not have veteran status according to the legal definition. There is of course a sense of "veteran" that is simply meant to describe those who have served on active duty, and that's what something like the census question you mentioned is asking about. Your example highlights that representing military service itself could be of use as well. But serving on active duty is not sufficient for having veteran status by the legal definition. Instead of concerning a role one bears, it would instead be a matter of the person having a history that has a certain type of process as a part. So if for example the process was labeled 'serving in the military', then something like |
IMHO, restricting the use of the term |
Part (i) of the definition is the criteria for being a veteran according to the U.S. code (38 U.S.C. §101(2)), with part (ii) being the addition that the VA's definition makes to part (i). It is in virtue of these that the type of role in question exists. Some roles are created by institutions or organizations having defined things in certain ways, and this is one of them. When defining such roles, we cannot ignore how the relevant institutions or organizations define them, or else we're defining something else. If by "the use cases already noted" you mean the census question you mentioned, then that does not ask about a role of any kind. It asks whether a person's history includes military service, and is the same (in a 'yes'/'no' sense) for a veteran, a person who was dishonorably discharged, or a person who still serves. Having a history that has a military service as a part is not the same thing as having veteran status in the legal sense. If the goal is representing the status defined in 38 U.S.C. §101(2), then a role is the way to go. These goals are compatible. My request concerns the first, and you've given an example of data that warrants the second. But they concern different sorts of entities. One is role. The other is a process. |
Yes. I understand that there is a specific legal definition of 'veteran'. IMHO, it doesn't line up well with other contexts in which the word 'veteran' may be used. I guess we just disagree on this. So, others should weigh in order for us to reach a consensus.
Currently the If the driving use case is representing patients at the VA, then the more straightforward approach (I think) would be to create a |
I’m in favor of Clint’s proposal and rationale. If we need to clarify it we
could add an editor preferred term that says something like US veteran
legal role.
We don’t need to subclass history to do what Clint suggested, we would need
to represent some “military activity” process and then for the sense of
ever having participated in such a process, say that that activity was a
part of the person’s history.
…On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 2:54 PM Bill Duncan ***@***.***> wrote:
Part (i) of the definition is the criteria for being a veteran according
to the U.S. code (38 U.S.C. §101(2)) ...
Yes. I understand that there is a specific legal definition of 'veteran'.
IMHO, it doesn't line up well with other contexts in which the word
'veteran' may be used. I guess we just disagree on this. So, others should
weigh in order for us to reach a consensus.
person can be represented as having a history that has that sort of
process as an occurrent part.
Currently the history class in OMRSE does not have any children. So, this
would be new territory. I'm not opposed to such development, but we need to
think if we want OMRSE to include histories. If the driving use case is
representing patients at the VA, then the more straightforward approach (I
think) would be to create a VA patient role.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#205 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJR55VN2HK2TFL6HLRCCVDXEP3OVANCNFSM6AAAAAAVXAO6QE>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
I'll go along with whatever the consensus is :)
This definition allows for changes in the legal definition of 'veteran' w/o necessarily having to change the ontology definition.
Good point! |
We will use the following definition: |
…. veteran role'; added 'lives in'; add classes for social categories and identities; and added 'occupation disposition' and 'occupation activity'.
Preferred term label:
U.S. veteran role
Textual definition:
Deontic role that inheres in a person if and only if that person (i) served in the active military, naval, or air service of the United States, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable, or (ii) is a Reservist or member of the United States National Guard called to Federal active duty or disabled from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty or while in training status; and that is realized by processes in which that person participates, where participation is allowed in virtue of the person’s meeting condition (i) or (ii).
Definition source:
38 U.S.C. §101(2), as well as “Determining Veteran Status” by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU): https://www.va.gov/OSDBU/docs/Determining-Veteran-Status.pdf.
Suggested parent term:
deontic role
Why OMRSE:
While veteran status is determined by events that occurred in that person's past, there is something ongoing that is referred to when we talk about someone being a veteran, and it socially determined to an extent. This is reflected in the fact that there is a legal definition of "veteran" in the United States, and that those who meet the requirements laid out by that definition are allowed access to certain programs/resources they otherwise would not be. There is an additional sense in which it is socially determined, since whether someone has veteran status is (or can be) contingent upon whether the person was honorably discharged.
It is medically relevant because it affects the type of health care options and assistance available to the person. Furthermore, some consider military experience to be a social determinant of health; and in some data sets the only indicator of whether a person has military experience is a data element about whether the person is a veteran.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: