search

BiodiversityOntologies / bco

Biological Collections Ontology
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
22 stars 3 forks source link

Consider moving BCO relations to RO #105

Open ramonawalls opened 4 years ago

ramonawalls commented 4 years ago

ROBOT says it is an error to have our own relations. See http://obo-dashboard-test.ontodev.com/bco/fp7.html. We could request those in RO.

Row IRI Label Issue
1 http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BCO_0000058 has role shares label with http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0000087
2 http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BCO_0000085 to taxon not an RO property
3 http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BCO_0000086 of organism not an RO property
4 http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BCO_0000087 member of taxon not an RO property
ramonawalls commented 4 years ago

Definitely we need to get rid of has role. That was just there because there were conflicts between RO:has role and some other has role, which I think has been fixed.

bpeters42 commented 4 years ago

Hi Ramona: Only the definition of properties that have the same labels as an existing RO relation is considered an error. The other reports are intended to be warnings. It is understood that many ontologies will have their own relationships - it is more of a reminder to think about if any of the relations you are coining might be of more general use, and/or to inspect if there are overlapping properties in RO that could serve the same purpose.

ramonawalls commented 4 years ago

I am going to break these out into separate issues for each relation. I will close this issue once has role is deprecated.

ramonawalls commented 4 years ago

See #113 for to taxon and of organism.

member of taxon is okay as is for now.