Definitions of Signal Detection Artifact Function and Signal Processing Artifact Function too broad about commoncoreontologies

[cameronmore]

Signal Detection Artifact Function = An Artifact Function that inheres in Artifacts that are designed to discern between information-bearing patterns and random patterns, or noise, that distract from the information.

could be turned into:

Signal Detection Artifact Function = An Artifact Function that is realized in the process of discerning between information-bearing patterns and random patterns, or noise, that distract from the information

And

Signal Processing Artifact Function = An Artifact Function that inheres in Artifacts that are designed to process or transfer information contained in signals.

Turns into:

Signal Processing Artifact Function = An Artifact Function that is realized in the process of transferring or processing information contained in signals.

@mark-jensen where can I start working on some of these changes? On this issue and ones similar like 246

[gregfowlerphd]

@cameronmore: Your proposed definitions sound good, though I'd suggest some minor changes that would make them more similar to most other definitions of Artifact Function subclasses:

Signal Detection Artifact Function: An Artifact Function that is realized in processes in which some Artifact is used to discern between information-bearing patterns and random patterns, or noise, that distract from the information.

Signal Processing Artifact Function: An Artifact Function that is realized in processes in which some Artifact is used to process or transfer information contained in signals.

[cameronmore]

The ancestor class Artifact Function already covers the 'inheres in an artifact that' portion of the definition, so although I like your suggestion, I think it could be conciser, and the other definition (that have the same style) also don't have that 'inheres in artifact that' portion.

[gregfowlerphd]

@cameronmore: I'm not sure what you mean. The slightly changed versions of your proposed definitions that I suggested don't mention inherence at all.

[cameronmore]

Sorry, I meant that the 'in which some artifact is used to' portion of the definition isn't necessary, that's more of the definition of the process in which the artifact is employed

[gregfowlerphd]

@cameronmore: OK. Although I'd note that most of the other definitions of Artifact Function subclasses do contain the "in which some Artifact is used to" portion.