Clarify semantics of dust and aerosol; and add subclasses

[cmungall]

ENVO has both dust and aerosol:

[Term]
id: ENVO:00002008
name: dust
namespace: ENVO
def: "Minute solid particles with diameters less than 500 micrometers. Occurs in and may be deposited from, the atmosphere." [Wikipedia:Dust]
xref: EcoLexicon:dust
xref: SWEETRealm:Dust
xref: Wikipedia:Dust
is_a: ENVO:01000814  ! solid environmental material
relationship: has_quality PATO:0001546 ! quality of a solid

[Term]
id: ENVO:00010505
name: aerosol
namespace: ENVO
def: "Airborne solid particles (also called dust or particulate matter (PM)) or liquid droplets." [Wikipedia:Aerosol]
comment: Should connect to PATO as \"quality of an aerosol\"
xref: EcoLexicon:aerosol
xref: SWEETRealm:Aerosol
xref: Wikipedia:Aerosol
is_a: ENVO:01000060  ! particulate matter

These are not connected together, but they presumably should be.

The definition of dust uses a pluralized genus "particles", and the genus does not reflect actual parentage.

Once we figure this out, we can decide how classes such as mineral dust should be added

[pbuttigieg]

Why does dust need to be airborne: when it settles is it not still, dust? (There's a haiku in there)

The solid material parentage refers to the invidual particles, but are the interstices just as important? Sort of like the archipelago issue we had some time back.

Perhaps we should use object aggregate semantics for a collection of dust particles (linking to the material that composes them) and then have 'aersolised dust ' under aerosol to be very clear (vs mineral dust in a jar)? This brings the semantics close to those of 'sediment', which may not be wrong if we ref a 'sedimentation process' for both.

On 5 Aug 2016 15:45, "Chris Mungall" notifications@github.com wrote:

ENVO has both dust and aerosol:

[Term] id: ENVO:00002008 name: dust namespace: ENVO def: "Minute solid particles with diameters less than 500 micrometers. Occurs in and may be deposited from, the atmosphere." [Wikipedia:Dust] xref: EcoLexicon:dust xref: SWEETRealm:Dust xref: Wikipedia:Dust is_a: ENVO:01000814 ! solid environmental material relationship: has_quality PATO:0001546 ! quality of a solid

[Term] id: ENVO:00010505 name: aerosol namespace: ENVO def: "Airborne solid particles (also called dust or particulate matter (PM)) or liquid droplets." [Wikipedia:Aerosol] comment: Should connect to PATO as \"quality of an aerosol\" xref: EcoLexicon:aerosol xref: SWEETRealm:Aerosol xref: Wikipedia:Aerosol is_a: ENVO:01000060 ! particulate matter

These are not connected together, but they presumably should be.

The definition of dust uses a pluralized genus "particles", and the genus does not reflect actual parentage.

Once we figure this out, we can decide how classes such as mineral dust should be added

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/EnvironmentOntology/envo/issues/378, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACK7MnJFiLAfwfZ2cTdEb3nu2tfaTTisks5qc7z6gaJpZM4JeHkf .

[cmungall]

On 5 Aug 2016, at 16:33, Pier Luigi Buttigieg wrote:

Why does dust need to be airborne: when it settles is it not still, dust?

it is, agreed.

(There's a haiku in there)

The solid material parentage refers to the invidual particles, but are the interstices just as important? Sort of like the archipelago issue we had some time back.

I think they are important.

Perhaps we should use object aggregate semantics for a collection of dust particles (linking to the material that composes them)

this makes sense. the collection could have different shapes, such as layers or clouds.

and then have 'aersolised dust ' under aerosol to be very clear (vs mineral dust in a jar)? This brings the semantics close to those of 'sediment', which may not be wrong if we ref a 'sedimentation process' for both.

I'm still not totally clear on this point. Would 'aerosolised dust' be a subclass of both aerosol and dust?

[pbuttigieg]

Perhaps aerosol would then be a defined class like solid or liquid, and any material which has particles surrounded by air would be placed there by inference.

On 9 Aug 2016 04:19, "Chris Mungall" notifications@github.com wrote:

On 5 Aug 2016, at 16:33, Pier Luigi Buttigieg wrote:

Why does dust need to be airborne: when it settles is it not still, dust?

it is, agreed.

(There's a haiku in there)

The solid material parentage refers to the invidual particles, but are the interstices just as important? Sort of like the archipelago issue we had some time back.

I think they are important.

Perhaps we should use object aggregate semantics for a collection of dust particles (linking to the material that composes them)

this makes sense. the collection could have different shapes, such as layers or clouds.

and then have 'aersolised dust ' under aerosol to be very clear (vs mineral dust in a jar)? This brings the semantics close to those of 'sediment', which may not be wrong if we ref a 'sedimentation process' for both.

I'm still not totally clear on this point. Would 'aerosolised dust' be a subclass of both aerosol and dust?

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/EnvironmentOntology/envo/issues/378#issuecomment-238434745, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACK7MhpyJFEDp-cxb5CfgGzOLrXfI1ivks5qd-OdgaJpZM4JeHkf .