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 !