cuboideum
commented
7 years ago In the project meeting on 17 January 2017, it was decided that a special skeletal inventory was needed to assess if the required skeletal elements are present or not. Concerning the os incae (inca bone), the FMA provides the class obo:FMA_59327 ('sutural bone') for all additional bones that form within cranial sutures. In the FMA, it comes with three subclasses:
- obo:FMA_235796 ('Epipteric bone')
- obo:FMA_75748 ('Interparietal bone')
- obo:FMA_235792 ('Preinterparietal bone')
The inca bone would have to be introduced as a subclass of 'Interparietal bone', according to a Wikipedia article.
Due to the repatriation of possible Australian Aborigineal skulls in the Alexander Ecker Collection in Freiburg, several skulls were under investigation. Epigenetic variants of the relevant skulls were recorded. Therefore, we need a new suitable extension for RDFBones. In the data entry form used, a total of 68 different epigenetic variants are listed. These traits are grouped by single bones on which they might be observable or not observable, present or absent. For instance, the Sutura metopica may be present on a frontal bone. In this case, the Assay.SuturaMetopica has a Specimen.SuturaMetopica as input which has an restriction which states that only complete frontal bones may be input of the SpecimenCollectionProcess.SuturaMetopica. Unfortunatlely, there are some complicated cases, for example: In the data entry form, the Os incae (an additional flat bone in occipital region of the neurocranium) is listed as an epigenetic variant of the occipital bone. But in RDFBones, we cannot define a complete occipital bone as input of the SpecimenCollectionProcess.OsIncae since the Os incae is an additional, complete flat bone! Thus, we have to discuss and decide if epigenetic variants that consist of additional bones should be recorded separately in the primary skeletal inventory or not. I would prefer not to add them to the primary skeletal inventory for the following reasons: 1) There are so many epigenetic variants that it is (in the future) better to have several extensions which provide several lists of epigenetic variants. Then researchers who want to examine an epigenetic variant which is not already included in RDFBones-O do not need to change the core ontology, but may just add another extension. 2) The Os incae is a well known and identifiable bone which could be recorded in the primary skeletal inventory. But what about all the additional bones (nearly randomly) located along the cranial sutures? Their position cannot be defined locally in relation to the sutures.
Therefore, I suggest the following solution: Let us define the input of the SpecimenCollectionProcess.OsIncae not on the level of single bones but as "Neurocranium". Thus, the Neurocranium may have an Os incae or not. The Neurocranium may have several additional bones along the sutures or not. In this way, we do not need to identify them or define them according to their (random) location. Thus, we keep the primary skeletal inventory, i.e. the core ontology, and the extension for epigenetic variants separate. (Well, at the moment I am not sure if this solution really works for all epigentic variants...)