Closed pbuttigieg closed 8 years ago
Sure. We can add that. I need to fix my NCBI import file anyway, so I can add Plantae then.
In terms of the equivalancy axioms, I think this should say has member min 2 NCBI:Plantae, has member only NCBI:Plantae. Is this what you intended, @pbuttigieg? It is fairly restrictive, but I think consistent with many plant data sets.
In terms of the equivalancy axioms, I think this should say has member min 2 NCBI:Plantae, has member only NCBI:Plantae.
Yes, sounds right if you mean min 2 populations of organisms from Plantae. The restriction is intended and probably quite useful. Many thanks!
I was being a bit lazy before in using the term Plantae, which doesn't actually correspond to a clade.
We can define a plant kingdom based on one of the following:
Viridiplantae - green plants, includes green algae and land plants Streptophyta - land plants plus charophytes (I don't recommend this one) Embriophyta - land plants
I think the last one is what most people think of as a plant community, so I will make a class for that. To be clear, I will use "land plant community" as the primary label. Then we can always add a broader class for all green plants if it is needed.
Added class http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/pco.owl/PCO_0000204, with definition:
'ecological community' and ('has member' only Embryophyta)
Greetings!
Would it be possible to create a subclass of ecological community labelled "plant community" and defined as: "An ecological community composed of members of the kingdom Plantae"
This is quite general, but useful. It can also be used with more complex communities as follows: "rainforest community" has_part "plant community"
This relates to work on ecoregions and the like over at the prototype Biogeographic Area Ontology