Closed julesjacobsen closed 2 years ago
I agree. This is common practice in all OBO ontologies that use ObjectProperties
omitting the "of" and having just "Father" or "isFather" can be ambiguous w.r.t direction
It looks like this was all agreed upon in #1, which is now closed
Given the relationship
KIN_003 (isBiologicalParent)
:Asserting that
Homer - isBiologicalParent -> Bart
reads strangely. The termisBiologicalParent
sounds more like a property rather than a relationship. Wouldn't it read more naturally asHomer - isBiologicalParent*Of* -> Bart
, with the inverse beingBart - isBiologicalChild*Of* -> Homer
.Putting this in the context of the pedigree model:
It isn't clear to me what this is trying to say! @buske This is in part due to the field names and ordering, but the
relation
label doesn't help to clarify things. Renaming the fieldsindividual
->subject
andrelation
->relationship
would make it clearer. For example: