Make the relationship between measurement terms like pH and method terms like ph_meth explicit

[turbomam]

In NMDC's submission-schema, we will probably assert rules that one shouldn't be filled out without the other.

I assume GSC doesn't want to do that, but the two terms should at lest mention one another

see also

• https://github.com/microbiomedata/issues/issues/438

[turbomam]

note that some of the term names end in _meth and others end in _method. I don't think that terms with he 'meth' sting internal to their name are in scope for this task.

[turbomam]

• add_recov_method
• al_sat_meth
• alkalinity_method
• anim_water_method
• biocide_admin_method
• chem_treat_method
• cur_vegetation_meth
• heat_sys_deliv_meth
• heavy_metals_meth
• horizon_meth
• local_class_meth
• micro_biomass_meth
• ph_meth
• photosynt_activ_meth
• plant_water_method
• prev_land_use_meth
• samp_collect_method
• samp_sort_meth
• sample_collec_method
• sc_lysis_method
• seq_meth
• sim_search_meth
• soil_texture_meth
• soil_type_meth
• texture_meth
• tot_n_meth
• tot_nitro_cont_meth
• tot_org_c_meth
• urine_collect_meth
• water_cont_soil_meth

[cmungall]

I suggest breaking this down.

The first thing to do is decide on the naming convention. The principle should be that for a measurement <-> method tuple:

• the method label should always be the measurement label affixed with method
• the method laSCNel should always be the measurement SCN affixed with _meth or _method
  • I suggest picking one, enforcing it for new terms, and considering renaming existing ones

Then for a more formal way to tie these together that does not rely on string parsing I suggest

• slots are mapped to ontology classes
• the ontology (external to MIxS) takes care of formally relating method for measurements to the things measured (for example, methods in OBI and measurements/characteristics in ENVO)