Open pbuttigieg opened 7 years ago
We did have a class in the editors' version, but the definition has been updated to match the one above. http://purl.unep.org/sdg/SDGIO_00010071
OBI has some useful classes which are quite close to what we need: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0001173 # service http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000941 # service consumer role http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000947 # service provider role http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000993 # service provision objective
They all require planned processes, however, which don't really allow for ecosystem services.
@phismith @cmungall I'm leaning towards using OBI service classes for all planned processes (anthropogenic mostly) and creating new classes for ecosystem services and others which require no plan. Thoughts?
The definition in OBI is fine
The ontology scoping is not good. I'm sure OBI would be willing to donate to an appropriate broader social ontology but there would likely be a lot of coordination here.
We have sub-classes, but the superclass appears to be missing. @phismith will assist with these semantics. This is along the lines of:
where
service provider
andservice recipient
roles would be defined in therole
branch.crossref #63 #64 and #6 for some thoughts on
resource
see #31