ExPaNDS-eu / ExPaNDS-experimental-techniques-ontology

EU Photon and Neutron Ontologies (task 3.2)
8 stars 4 forks source link

Update "propagation phase contrast microtomography" - PaNET01210 #159

Open rduyme opened 1 month ago

rduyme commented 1 month ago

PaNET01210 is "propagation phase contrast microtomography" (no acronym)

But "propagation phase contrast synchrotron radiation microtomography" name seems to be better name, technique seems to be used only with x-rays ( with acronym "PPC-SRµCT" )

see google scholar :

It seems there is no link to "x-ray probe" from PaNET01210

Could we update ontology to have "propagation phase contrast synchrotron radiation microtomography" instead of "propagation phase contrast microtomography"

spc93 commented 1 month ago

Yes we can (and should) update this term. I think the existing label is OK as it is in comon use. We could add the proposed new label as an alternate label. This would then give as labels both the commonly-used label and a better, more explicit one.

I think there is a wider question here. Taking tomography as an example, and looking at tomography techniques in PaNET that do not subclass 'x-ray probe': Which of these are, in reality, x-ray techniques (and therefore need to subclass 'x-ray probe'), and which may or may not be x-ray techniques, in which case need aditional, more specific, subclasses.

I will look at all the tomography techniques to see if we need to subclass 'x-ray probe' for any of the others.

I wasn't able to find where we put code snippets, so if anyone can remember...

gkoum commented 1 month ago

The use of an alt label is recommended in this case to have them both available as @spc93 suggested.

As for the wider question we could have another issue to track which tomography techniques should have "x-ray probe" as a parent class. In this case we need to be careful if these techniques have parents connected to "x-ray probe" making the classes under discussion also connected. For that we could use DL-query tab in Protege that shows all parent classes of a class.

spc93 commented 1 month ago

definition of 'propagation phase contrast microtomography' (subclass of 'propagation phase contrast tomography')

Solution 1: Keep these terms as they are but create additional x-ray versions e.g. 'x-ray propagation phase contrast tomography' (superclass of 'x-ray tomography' etc, rather than 'tomography'), and 'x-ray propagation phase contrast microtomography' as a subclass of 'x-ray propagation phase contrast tomography'. Then need to decide which labels (and new labels) belong to which techniques.

Solution 2: As above but rather than creating additional terms, re-use these to refer explicitly to x-rays.

Solution 1 is more general and extensible, allowing these techniques to be use with future highly coherent neutron sources. However, this approach leads to a proliferation of terms.

I would suggest solution (1).

We might also state that 'x-ray probe' and 'neutron probe' are disjoint. Again, this is a pragmatic choice (which will help in finding logical inconsistencies) but would make it difficult to describe a future x-ray/neutron beamline. (Anyone planning to build one??!!).

If we decide on a general approach then I can propose specific new definitions.

gkoum commented 1 month ago

Solution 1 is indeed a better choice for the following reasons:

Disjoined

spc93 commented 1 month ago

Comments on this would be helpful:

Proposed changes:

  1. New term: 'x-ray propagation phase contrast tomography' subclass of: 'propagation phase contrast tomography' AND 'x-ray probe'

  2. New term: 'x-ray propagation phase contrast microtomography' subclass of: 'x-ray propagation phase contrast tomography' AND 'microscopy' alt-label: 'PPC-SRμCT'

  3. Modification: 'photon probe' disjoint with 'neutron probe' (previously no disjoint classes).

paulmillar commented 1 month ago

Just a thought: should the new term 'x-ray propagation phase contrast microtomography' should be a subclass of 'x-ray microscopy'. This would be a more specific term.