Open wdduncan opened 4 years ago
is this an ecto problem?
processual entity is not a BFO class: it is an UBERON class.
We cant not use it :P If anything, you can make an UBERON ticket to ask to align processual entity with BFO:process.. Again, not an ECTO issue but feel free to re-open if you disagree.
Yes. I disagree :) When you do your import from UBERON, you placed the entities under process. You do not have to be beholden to processual entity.
Oh ok.. I am afraid I dont quite understand yet; which entities have we placed under process? Can you give an example? I believe, but @diatomsRcool correct me if I am wrong, we have not actually added a single axiom to ECTO:
everything is either generated by dosdp (no manual assertions) or coming from external ontologies..
Under process (BFO_0000015) I see:
In regard to 'processual entity', this was originally a BFO 1.1 class. @cmungall Are you able to use the BFO 'process' class instead of 'processual entity'? I am not familiar with how UBERON is built.
Ah you say that UBERON added processual entity
as a replacement for BFO:processual entity
, and your suggestion is to obsolete UBERON:processual entity
in favour of BFO:process
?
Processual entity
used to be included in BFO 1. In BFO 2, the authors created a process
class that replaced processual entity
.
UBERON, for reasons I am not aware of, retained processual entity
. Processual entity
has an UBERON IRI, but the definition is the same as the BFO 1 class. It would make more sense (IMHO) to move the entities under processual entity
to be under process
.
Ok, maybe move that ticket there then?
We should discuss with @cmungall
Where are we with this? Is this an ECTO issue?
The term 'processual entity' should not be in the ontology. BFO now endorses the term 'process'.