Address obo foundry unique label

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This isn't an accepted principle or really part of one but needs to be 
addressed. 

Here is some mention in a number of places:

see http://www.geneontology.org/GO.format.obo-1_4.shtml
http://www.obofoundry.org/wiki/index.php/Action_Items_From_CL_Workshop_2010
https://sourceforge.net/p/ontobee/feature-requests/7/
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/obo-discuss/dngsIzsHStc/mErxeWQZSoYJ
http://www.ontobee.org/browser/rdf.php?o=IAO&iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/
IAO_0000589
http://www.obofoundry.org/wiki/index.php/Naming

Original issue reported on code.google.com by haen...@ohsu.edu on 14 Oct 2013 at 6:18

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Do we need to make it a principle, or should it just be part of the IAO 
metadata set (like for other annotation properties)?

Original comment by mcour...@gmail.com on 16 Oct 2013 at 11:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

See also 2007 "Towards naming conventions for use in controlled vocabulary and 
ontology engineering" 
http://msi-ontology.sourceforge.net/namingconventions/ cited in OBO Foundry 
Coordinated evolution...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBO_Foundry

Survey-based naming conventions for use in OBO Foundry ontology development  
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/125 and table 1 "The initial set of 
OBO Foundry naming conventions" section 1 "Be clear and unambiguous". "Be 
univocous"  http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/10/125/table/T1
Authors: Daniel Schober, Barry Smith, Suzanna E Lewis, Waclaw Kusnierczyk, Jane 
Lomax, Chris Mungall, Chris F Taylor, Philippe Rocca-Serra and Susanna-Assunta 
Sansone

- Note distinction between editor preferred label (follows these guidelines), 
other label properties.

Responding to Melanie's question: The issue first is whether it a principle in 
spirit, is there contention about the need. Second how it is reflected in our 
documentation

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 6 Mar 2014 at 4:01

[GoogleCodeExporter]

At the Editorial WG meeting on Mar 6, we discussed whether or not Foundry 
principle 12 already included the notion that there should be unique Foundry 
labels. I think there was general agreement that there should be unique labels, 
and that the current wording that

"Naming conventions will ease the application of computerized lexical analysis 
and processing and will further:
    reduce lexical variance
    increase human term recognition velocity
    increase precision in the interpreted meaning conveyed by name
    increase precision and recall in term query results
    help automatic string matching"

should be interpreted to mean that there should be Foundry unique labels. 
However, the group was divided as to whether it should be part of principle 12 
or a separate principle.

We discussed using SKOS properties for unique labels. Some members of the 
community have suggested this. I looked into this and it looks like 
skos:prefLabel would work because:

1. skos:prefLabels are instances of owl:AnnotationProperty,

2. skos:prefLabel is a sub-properties of rdfs:label,

3. A resource has no more than one value of skos:prefLabel per language tag.

[See http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#labels]

As long as the prefLabel is specified in English, it would have to be unique 
for each ontology. There was some concern that prefLabel was a data property, 
but it is an annotation property.

Original comment by rlwalls2...@gmail.com on 12 Mar 2014 at 12:35

• Changed state: Started