Scope Question about the relation 'disrupts'

[PhiBabs935]

The scopenote for the relation 'disrupts' reads:

"A process can disrupt another process from occurring as it would have by 1) preventing a disposition or role from being realized by that process, 2) lowering the grade of the process, or 3) stopping the process from continuing to occur."

Does this or does this not include the prevention of a process from occurring at all?

Is deterrence intended to be within the scope of 'disrupts'?

[mark-jensen]

Reading the definition and editorial notes, and from discussions I recall having with @DavidGLimbaugh when he created it, I am fairly certain the intended scope does not include preventing a process from coming into existence, ie. occurring at all.

Blocking a process from happening makes axiomatization problematic. What would the range be?

[PhiBabs935]

That's what I thought. I see the problem concerning the range. The question is then how to represent deterrence. In the military (in Joint Doctrine) they explicitly distinguish two forms of coercion: deterring--convincing the adversary not to take a course of action; and compelling--convincing the adversary to cease a course of action. 'disrupts' covers the latter.

Would deterrence need to be modeled in an indirect way? Not a relation between a deterrent process and the prevented process, but rather a relation between an instance of deterrent process (by the deterring agent) and act of deciding (by the deterred agent) not to perform a process?

[oliviahobai]

Since this is a question of modeling rather than a proposal to broaden the scope of 'disrupts' I am going to request that this line of thinking continue as a discussion, perhaps culminating with a new object property to the effect of 'deters' or 'compels'. Will gladly re-open as an issue if needed. Thank you !

[PhiBabs935]

Sounds good to me, thanks.

[PhiBabs935]

Here is a sample representation of how to model deterrence (in this case, deterrence through the threat of economic sanctions). It is an example of the indirect way that I first suggested in my April 8th reply to Mark. This is part of some DARPA work I have been involved in that partially revolves around deterrence:

Terminology:

Act of Deterrence: A Planned Act through which an Agent aims to cause another Agent to refrain from some Planned Act by presenting the latter with a Credible Threat to perform an unacceptable counteraction, or by causing the latter to believe that the cost of their proposed Planned Act outweighs its perceived benefits. [source: Derived from Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations]

Act of Threat Making: An Act of Directive Communication that is performed by expressing an intention to take some action against another Agent that is harmful or unfavorable to that Agent.
-subclass axiom: has input SOME Threat Information Content Entity

Threat Information Content Entity: A Directive Information Content Entity that is an expression of some Agent's intention to take some action against another Agent that is harmful or unfavorable to the latter Agent.
-subclass axiom: prescribes SOME Adversarial Action

Act of Economic Sanctioning: An Act of Economic Statecraft in which some Geopolitical Entity imposes a Process Regulation upon some Agent, or Group of Agents, that is designed to inflict economic costs meant to compel or deter certain actions or policies on the part of that Agent or Group of Agents. [source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-sanctions]

Decision to Refrain: A Decision that has as output some Selection Decision Specification which prescribes some Act of Refrain.
*note: relies on Selection Decision Specification from the Cognitive Process Ontology

Act of Refrain: A Planned Act in which some Agent avoids or stops themselves from participating in some Planned Act.
[source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/refrain]