jonathanbona
commented
1 year ago My vote is to just ignore overlap with MAXO for now, for the reasons Mark provided above. Also it seems to be more a list of terms without axiomatic definitions, and it doesn't follow standard patterns for describing planned processes and the information artifacts like plan specifications, which we need.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 6:15 AM Mark PHillips @.***> wrote:
What to do about ontologies that define classes that seem out of their scope and/or don't follow OBO rules. One is MAXO (medical action ontology) that defines therapy procedures but completely ignores BFO. Similarly there is an mRNA ontology that defines diagnostic CT--why? Another example is OBI which defines things like "device" but includes "for investigation" in its definition. We could live with it without that qualification.
Possible actions: ignore them; contact the ontology itself and ask for better definitions; contact OBO and ask what to do.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/aapm-bdsc-ontology-tg/radont/issues/73, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAATBN7BN4HCBNJDV7XCZXLWFH6X5ANCNFSM6AAAAAARPUDOT4 . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
What to do about ontologies that define classes that seem out of their scope and/or don't follow OBO rules. One is MAXO (medical action ontology) that defines therapy procedures but completely ignores BFO. Similarly there is an mRNA ontology that defines diagnostic CT--why? Another example is OBI which defines things like "device" but includes "for investigation" in its definition. We could live with it without that qualification.
Possible actions: ignore them; contact the ontology itself and ask for better definitions; contact OBO and ask what to do.