Integrate PNO into IAO

[mbrochhausen]

The Proper Name Ontology (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/iao/pno.owl) was created a few years back and was kept separate for multiple reasons, which at this point have all become obsolete. I propose to integrate PNO into IAO. I will happily join to IAO developer meetings to help coordinate that and I'll participate in the future to help further development of the identifier branch.

[hoganwr]

+1

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 9:50 AM Mathias Brochhausen < notifications@github.com> wrote:

The Proper Name Ontology (http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/iao/pno.owl) was created a few years back and was kept separate for multiple reasons, which at this point have all become obsolete. I propose to integrate PNO into IAO. I will happily join to IAO developer meetings to help coordinate that and I'll participate in the future to help further development of the identifier branch.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/237, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJR55VX4WHWTER2F2NITD3SRUKVDANCNFSM4UCP56KQ .

[jamesaoverton]

This seems like the right approach to me.

[zhengj2007]

related issue: https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/236

[alanruttenberg]

I'm open to this, though I think it needs review and discussion. e.g. "An identifier is an information content entity that is the outcome of a dubbing process and is used to refer to one instance of entity shared by a group of people to refer to that individual entity."

• family name is asserted to be identifier. But it's not clear that family name alone designates one instance. Makes more sense to me to have first and last name be /parts/ of a personal name.
• First name and given name vary across cultures. As I understand it, in China the "first name" is actually the second. This suggests to me that these should have a more specific label.
• Some of the terms seem to belong elsewhere, e.g. mechanical wave quality. Also, I don't understand the definition of that term.

I'm open to meeting some time to work through this.

[mbrochhausen]

Hi,

I agree with point one and two Alan raises. I did think I addressed the aspect Alan raised in 2), but it appears I haven't. However, full agreement with Alan that his needs to be addressed. I am looking forward to his suggestion of where to put mechanical wave quality. Needless to say I am absolutely open to discuss the definition.

I'd strongly prefer to hash these things out by e-mail or issue tracker as my time is extremely limited and I would like to see this move forward.

Best, Mathias

Best, Mathias

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:31 AM Alan Ruttenberg notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm open to this, though I think it needs review and discussion. e.g. "An identifier is an information content entity that is the outcome of a dubbing process and is used to refer to one instance of entity shared by a group of people to refer to that individual entity."

• family name is asserted to be identifier. But it's not clear that family name alone designates one instance. Makes more sense to me to have first and last name be /parts/ of a personal name.
• First name and given name vary across cultures. As I understand it, in China the "first name" is actually the second. This suggests to me that these should have a more specific label.
• Some of the terms seem to belong elsewhere, e.g. mechanical wave quality. Also, I don't understand the definition of that term.

I'm open to meeting some time to work through this.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/237#issuecomment-746480583, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLTEUN5GWXAKM7EQUGLSVDHGNANCNFSM4UCP56KQ .

[mbrochhausen]

Alan,

can you please specify the issue with 'given name'. I consciously avoided the terms 'first name' and 'last name'. THe only reference to first name I find related to 'given name' is in the definition: "A given name, in Western contexts often referred to as a first name, is a personal name that specifies and differentiates between members of a group of individuals, especially in a family, all of whose members usually share the same family name (surname). A given name is purposefully given, usually by a child's parents at or near birth, in contrast to an inherited one such as a family name"

I propose to change it to: "A given name is a personal name that specifies and differentiates between members of a group of individuals, especially in a family, all of whose members usually share the same family name. A given name is purposefully given, usually by a child's parents at or near birth, in contrast to an inherited one such as a family name." In the same vein, I propose to change the definition of family name as follows:

"A family name is typically a part of a person's name which has been passed, according to law or custom, from one or both parents to their children.'

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:53 AM Mathias Brochhausen mbrochhausen@gmail.com wrote:

Hi,

I agree with point one and two Alan raises. I did think I addressed the aspect Alan raised in 2), but it appears I haven't. However, full agreement with Alan that his needs to be addressed. I am looking forward to his suggestion of where to put mechanical wave quality. Needless to say I am absolutely open to discuss the definition.

I'd strongly prefer to hash these things out by e-mail or issue tracker as my time is extremely limited and I would like to see this move forward.

Best, Mathias

Best, Mathias

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:31 AM Alan Ruttenberg notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm open to this, though I think it needs review and discussion. e.g. "An identifier is an information content entity that is the outcome of a dubbing process and is used to refer to one instance of entity shared by a group of people to refer to that individual entity."

• family name is asserted to be identifier. But it's not clear that family name alone designates one instance. Makes more sense to me to have first and last name be /parts/ of a personal name.
• First name and given name vary across cultures. As I understand it, in China the "first name" is actually the second. This suggests to me that these should have a more specific label.
• Some of the terms seem to belong elsewhere, e.g. mechanical wave quality. Also, I don't understand the definition of that term.

I'm open to meeting some time to work through this.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/237#issuecomment-746480583, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLTEUN5GWXAKM7EQUGLSVDHGNANCNFSM4UCP56KQ .

[mbrochhausen]

Wait, hold on. I propose more regarding 'family name': I propose to move to be a subclass of identifier and change the definition to "An identifier that refers to a group a people associated with each other through ancestral or family relations."

[mbrochhausen]

Nowadays, I am quite sure that there is no necessary relationship between a family name and a person name or vice versa. A good example of this is the Brazilian soccer player Pele. Pele is a personal name IMO, but it doesn't have a connection to a family name. Also, since family names identify groups that can be used and exist without actually being part of a person name.

[alanruttenberg]

Will respond to you points a little later. Regarding mechanical wave quality: In BFO2020 GDCs can be concretized in processes, something I had pushed for for a long time. I think in this context we could get rid of the physiology / physics aspects and define utterance process as a concretization of some class of GDCs. With that, we don't need (and I'd argue don't want) the term utterance. The are problematic in that it's not clear all utterances processes convey GDCs. Consider "ouch".

There's been a need for some time to have 'communication process', which might be able to define relatively cleanly.

It's also not clear to me why we have the anatomy term, which don't seem to used. We need Homo Sapiens, for personal name, though there's the question of whether machines can have names.

For 'code set', the one-to-one relation to entities doesn't cover the case where an identifier denotes a class or universal. At least in the OWL version. There was a last minute change to the BFO-2020 related to this where Barry had used the term entity in the spec to mean particular or universal. But usage until now, I believe, and certainly in prior usage in OWL has meant particulars.'

Even so, relations are sometimes collected into a code set, and relations are not considered entities.

A specific proposal - starting point for discussion:

• Deprecate portion of energy and subs
• Deprecate oscillating
• Don't import material anatomical entity and subs
• Drop utterance but keep the other siblings
• Add communication process subtypes: spoken communication process, possibly 'composing of written communication process'. Communication processes have a author and target (both roles). spoken communication processes have parts that are concretizations of graphemes, though this rules out languages that are only spoken.
• Deprecate utterance. It's arguably out of scope in that includes non language speech. It's also a bit confusing in that utterance process is focused on a language.
• Deprecate utterance process in favor of communication process (possibly 'spoken' depending on your intent)
  Add examples of usage for remaining terms.

Potential issues:

• Speaking to yourself, writing a journal. Arguably, in these cases the same thing has the author/target roles.
• Languages that are only spoken

Note: I haven't reviewed the relations yet.

[mbrochhausen]

Ok, it seems the scope of criticism/required changes is still a moving target. I'll wait until your review is completed and then address your comments.

Thanks, this is helpful.

Best, Mathias

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:19 PM Alan Ruttenberg notifications@github.com wrote:

Will respond to you points a little later. Regarding mechanical wave quality: In BFO2020 GDCs can be concretized in processes, something I had pushed for for a long time. I think in this context we could get rid of the physiology / physics aspects and define utterance process as a concretization of some class of GDCs. With that, we don't need (and I'd argue don't want) the term utterance. The are problematic in that it's not clear all utterances processes convey GDCs. Consider "ouch".

There's been a need for some time to have 'communication process', which might be able to define relatively cleanly.

It's also not clear to me why we have the anatomy term, which don't seem to used. We need Homo Sapiens, for personal name, though there's the question of whether machines can have names.

For 'code set', the one-to-one relation to entities doesn't cover the case where an identifier denotes a class or universal. At least in the OWL version. There was a last minute change to the BFO-2020 related to this where Barry had used the term entity in the spec to mean particular or universal. But usage until now, I believe, and certainly in prior usage in OWL has meant particulars.'

Even so, relations are sometimes collected into a code set, and relations are not considered entities.

A specific proposal - starting point for discussion:

• Deprecate portion of energy and subs
• Deprecate oscillating
• Don't import material anatomical entity and subs
• Drop utterance but keep the other siblings
• Add communication process subtypes: spoken communication process, possibly 'composing of written communication process'. Communication processes have a author and target (both roles). spoken communication processes have parts that are concretizations of graphemes, though this rules out languages that are only spoken.
• Deprecate utterance. It's arguably out of scope in that includes non language speech. It's also a bit confusing in that utterance process is focused on a language.
• Deprecate utterance process in favor of communication process (possibly 'spoken' depending on your intent) Add examples of usage for remaining terms.

Potential issues:

• Speaking to yourself, writing a journal. Arguably, in these cases the same thing has the author/target roles.
• Languages that are only spoken

Note: I haven't reviewed the relations yet.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/237#issuecomment-746667151, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLVGPQBAMVMNX47QQRTSVDTYLANCNFSM4UCP56KQ .

[mbrochhausen]

PS: I like the idea of getting utterance away from the physio-anatomical aspect! I might be wrong, but I think we recently did define 'communication process" in a language module for OMRSE. Bill (Hogan)?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:31 PM Mathias Brochhausen mbrochhausen@gmail.com wrote:

Ok, it seems the scope of criticism/required changes is still a moving target. I'll wait until your review is completed and then address your comments.

Thanks, this is helpful.

Best, Mathias

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:19 PM Alan Ruttenberg notifications@github.com wrote:

Will respond to you points a little later. Regarding mechanical wave quality: In BFO2020 GDCs can be concretized in processes, something I had pushed for for a long time. I think in this context we could get rid of the physiology / physics aspects and define utterance process as a concretization of some class of GDCs. With that, we don't need (and I'd argue don't want) the term utterance. The are problematic in that it's not clear all utterances processes convey GDCs. Consider "ouch".

There's been a need for some time to have 'communication process', which might be able to define relatively cleanly.

It's also not clear to me why we have the anatomy term, which don't seem to used. We need Homo Sapiens, for personal name, though there's the question of whether machines can have names.

For 'code set', the one-to-one relation to entities doesn't cover the case where an identifier denotes a class or universal. At least in the OWL version. There was a last minute change to the BFO-2020 related to this where Barry had used the term entity in the spec to mean particular or universal. But usage until now, I believe, and certainly in prior usage in OWL has meant particulars.'

Even so, relations are sometimes collected into a code set, and relations are not considered entities.

A specific proposal - starting point for discussion:

• Deprecate portion of energy and subs
• Deprecate oscillating
• Don't import material anatomical entity and subs
• Drop utterance but keep the other siblings
• Add communication process subtypes: spoken communication process, possibly 'composing of written communication process'. Communication processes have a author and target (both roles). spoken communication processes have parts that are concretizations of graphemes, though this rules out languages that are only spoken.
• Deprecate utterance. It's arguably out of scope in that includes non language speech. It's also a bit confusing in that utterance process is focused on a language.
• Deprecate utterance process in favor of communication process (possibly 'spoken' depending on your intent) Add examples of usage for remaining terms.

Potential issues:

• Speaking to yourself, writing a journal. Arguably, in these cases the same thing has the author/target roles.
• Languages that are only spoken

Note: I haven't reviewed the relations yet.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/237#issuecomment-746667151, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLVGPQBAMVMNX47QQRTSVDTYLANCNFSM4UCP56KQ .

[alanruttenberg]

Another thought: Name is proper name ontology but there's no proper name class. For instance the current ontology would not cover a place name.

[hoganwr]

Yes, we defined 'communication process' in OMRSE in consultation with MFO.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 3:12 PM Alan Ruttenberg notifications@github.com wrote:

Another thought: Name is proper name ontology but there's no proper name class. For instance the current ontology would not cover a place name.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/237#issuecomment-746939687, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJR55XLOBUFVZEBW2PSVDLSVEIDFANCNFSM4UCP56KQ .

[alanruttenberg]

Def: A process in which some participant shares some information content entity about some state of that participant with some other participant.

I'm not sure that the about part is broad enough. If I send a chain letter to someone it isn't about "some state of that participant." Similarly reading a bed time story to your kid.

[mbrochhausen]

1. PNO is called the Proper Name Ontology for historical reasons. The class that is labeled 'identifier' has 'proper name' as an alternative term now. Originally, the class was labeled 'proper name', which was deemed to be the central class of the ontology, which took on the domain of names.
2. The ontology implements a theory of names put forward here Devitt and Sterelny ( https://www.amazon.com/Language-Reality-2nd-Introduction-Philosophy/dp/0262540991/ref=sr_1_12?dchild=1&keywords=sterelny&qid=1608153647&sr=8-12). I thought that was referenced in the ontology metadata, but it isn't. That needs to be fixed. The definition of 'identifier' is still in accordance with that book.
3. The change from 'proper name' to 'identifier' was done in communication with IAO and OBO FOundry colleagues, so I am a tiny bit surprised that seems to be a problem now.
4. I don't understand why place names supposedly do not fall under identifiers. The definition reads: "An identifier is an information content entity that is the outcome of a dubbing process and is used to refer to one instance of entity shared by a group of people to refer to that individual entity." (again, which is Devitt and Sterelny's definition of proper name).

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 3:12 PM Alan Ruttenberg notifications@github.com wrote:

Another thought: Name is proper name ontology but there's no proper name class. For instance the current ontology would not cover a place name.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/237#issuecomment-746939687, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLRUGM2T6N3PKB3XDGDSVEIDFANCNFSM4UCP56KQ .

[mbrochhausen]

1. I would like to keep the discussion of the OMRSE term for communication out of this discussion, for the obvious reason that this is an OMRSE term and we are discussing merging IAO and PNO.
2. I do not think communication in the broad sense belongs into IAO. Communication ought to be part of a higher level social ontology.
3. I agree with Alan that the term communication can be used in natural language to refer to something broader, but I will (despite the fact that this discussion doesn't belong here) say that I think the OMRSE class is valid and represents one fairly frequent usage of the term 'communication". My proposal would be that whoever needs the broader sense provides a definition and then checks whether there is no label that fits their class except "communication". If that is the case OMRSE and the person with the broader class need to coordinate who gets to use this label.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 3:45 PM Alan Ruttenberg notifications@github.com wrote:

Def: A process in which some participant shares some information content entity about some state of that participant with some other participant.

I'm not sure that the about part is broad enough. If I send a chain letter to someone it isn't about "some state of that participant with some other participant." Similarly reading a bed time story to your kid.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/237#issuecomment-746986488, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLVF2BAXR7QMRU5LFA3SVEL5JANCNFSM4UCP56KQ .

[zhengj2007]

Chris S., John J, Mark M, and I looked through the PNO terms. Generally we agreed with Alan’s comments. We think following terms are in IAO scope and may need to integrate into IAO. IAO:0020000 identifier IAO:0020001 grapheme IAO:0020002 utterance IAO:0020015 personal name IAO:0020016 given name IAO:0020017 family name IAO:0020020 code set IAO:0020010 dubbing process

However, term ‘code set’ and ‘dubbing process’ need to be improved.

It needs to clarify distinction of ‘code set' with 'data set' and what is meant by code in label 'code set’. Here is the code set example and definition we found online for you to consider: Under HIPAA, a "code set" is any set of codes used for encoding data elements, such as tables of terms, medical concepts, medical diagnosis codes, or medical procedure codes. https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Administrative-Simplification/Code-Sets

Regarding ‘dubbing process’ , we think dubbing isn't an intuitive label based on the logical axiom. How about 'identifier creating process' or something like that.”?

List of terms in PNO

[mbrochhausen]

Hi,

thanks for taking the time to assess this. I do have a number of questions:

1. Could you please give a bit of rationale why in your minds writing quality and writing bearer are out of scope for IAO.

2, IAO:0020013 IAO:0020014

Why are those two object properties regarded out of scope?

3. Given the classes that are out of scope how do you propose we ensure rigor and consistency for the existing classes?

Comments:

1. I have no objections to using "identifier creating process" as label for the class. However, "dubbing process" (which is the linguistic term) should be kept as an alternative term. I would also suggest to add "naming" as an alternative term.

2. Not attempting to write a definition, but trying to clarify the difference between code set and data set.

Here is an example of a code set: "Raiders of the Lost Ark" - IJ_01 "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" - IJ_02 "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" - IJ_03 "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" - IJ_04

According to IAO a data set is: "A data item that is an aggregate of other data items of the same type that have something in common. Averages and distributions can be determined for data sets."

A data item is: "An information content entity that is intended to be a truthful statement about something (modulo, e.g., measurement precision or other systematic errors) and is constructed/acquired by a method which reliably tends to produce (approximately) truthful statements."

The list above is, in my mind, not a data item, since it is not something that is empirically verifiable. Someone (in case me) decided to code the 4 Indiana Jones movies that way. There may be other ways to code them. I think saying that any of the coding is "true" is committing a category mistake.

Happy to work on the definition to make that clearer.

Best, Mathias

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:41 AM jie zheng notifications@github.com wrote:

Chris S., John J, Mark M, and I looked through the PNO terms. Generally we agreed with Alan’s comments. We think following terms are in IAO scope and may need to integrate into IAO. IAO:0020000 identifier IAO:0020001 grapheme IAO:0020002 utterance IAO:0020015 personal name IAO:0020016 given name IAO:0020017 family name IAO:0020020 code set IAO:0020010 dubbing process

However, term ‘code set’ and ‘dubbing process’ need to be improved.

It needs to clarify distinction of ‘code set' with 'data set' and what is meant by code in label 'code set’. Here is the code set example and definition we found online for you to consider: Under HIPAA, a "code set" is any set of codes used for encoding data elements, such as tables of terms, medical concepts, medical diagnosis codes, or medical procedure codes.

https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Administrative-Simplification/Code-Sets

Regarding ‘dubbing process’ , we think dubbing isn't an intuitive label based on the logical axiom. How about 'identifier creating process' or something like that.”?

List of terms in PNO https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14Ry7CI0CLcjy_qMRgARKrQaQdVkopSo3nGOsDv7z5hM/edit#gid=1390486785

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/237#issuecomment-792840071, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLUSWEL64TT2PBSLDX3TCTVZJANCNFSM4UCP56KQ .

[zhengj2007]

I checked 3 object properties defined in PNO: IAO:0020013 is_borrowed_reference_to IAO:0020014 is_fixing_reference_to IAO:0020018 is designated by

They are not used in any ontology now. The inversion property of IAO:0020018 'is designated by', IAO:0020012 obsolete_designates, is the only property that used in OBIB. However, it is deprecated in PNO.

So, I propose to deprecate PNO object properties that are not used unless we have clear use cases to make the PNO integration easily.

[hoganwr]

+1 to Mathias' comments and suggestions.

Alternatively, editor preferred term could be "identifier creating process" and keep label as is.

Bill

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:03 AM Mathias Brochhausen < notifications@github.com> wrote:

Hi,

thanks for taking the time to assess this. I do have a number of questions:

1. Could you please give a bit of rationale why in your minds writing quality and writing bearer are out of scope for IAO.

2, IAO:0020013 IAO:0020014

Why are those two object properties regarded out of scope?

3. Given the classes that are out of scope how do you propose we ensure rigor and consistency for the existing classes?

Comments:

1. I have no objections to using "identifier creating process" as label for the class. However, "dubbing process" (which is the linguistic term) should be kept as an alternative term. I would also suggest to add "naming" as an alternative term.

2. Not attempting to write a definition, but trying to clarify the difference between code set and data set.

Here is an example of a code set: "Raiders of the Lost Ark" - IJ_01 "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" - IJ_02 "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" - IJ_03 "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" - IJ_04

According to IAO a data set is: "A data item that is an aggregate of other data items of the same type that have something in common. Averages and distributions can be determined for data sets."

A data item is: "An information content entity that is intended to be a truthful statement about something (modulo, e.g., measurement precision or other systematic errors) and is constructed/acquired by a method which reliably tends to produce (approximately) truthful statements."

The list above is, in my mind, not a data item, since it is not something that is empirically verifiable. Someone (in case me) decided to code the 4 Indiana Jones movies that way. There may be other ways to code them. I think saying that any of the coding is "true" is committing a category mistake.

Happy to work on the definition to make that clearer.

Best, Mathias

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:41 AM jie zheng notifications@github.com wrote:

Chris S., John J, Mark M, and I looked through the PNO terms. Generally we agreed with Alan’s comments. We think following terms are in IAO scope and may need to integrate into IAO. IAO:0020000 identifier IAO:0020001 grapheme IAO:0020002 utterance IAO:0020015 personal name IAO:0020016 given name IAO:0020017 family name IAO:0020020 code set IAO:0020010 dubbing process

However, term ‘code set’ and ‘dubbing process’ need to be improved.

It needs to clarify distinction of ‘code set' with 'data set' and what is meant by code in label 'code set’. Here is the code set example and definition we found online for you to consider: Under HIPAA, a "code set" is any set of codes used for encoding data elements, such as tables of terms, medical concepts, medical diagnosis codes, or medical procedure codes.

https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Administrative-Simplification/Code-Sets

Regarding ‘dubbing process’ , we think dubbing isn't an intuitive label based on the logical axiom. How about 'identifier creating process' or something like that.”?

List of terms in PNO < https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14Ry7CI0CLcjy_qMRgARKrQaQdVkopSo3nGOsDv7z5hM/edit#gid=1390486785

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub < https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/237#issuecomment-792840071 , or unsubscribe < https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLUSWEL64TT2PBSLDX3TCTVZJANCNFSM4UCP56KQ

.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/237#issuecomment-792858491, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJR55WFINYCYZUFPJ4MSNDTCTYNPANCNFSM4UCP56KQ .

[mbrochhausen]

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I agree with the depreciation.

Best, Mathias

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 12:31 PM jie zheng notifications@github.com wrote:

I checked 3 object properties defined in PNO: IAO:0020013 is_borrowed_reference_to IAO:0020014 is_fixing_reference_to IAO:0020018 is designated by

They are not used in any ontology now. The inversion property of IAO:0020018 'is designated by', IAO:0020012 obsolete_designates, is the only property that used in OBIB. However, it is deprecated in PNO.

So, I propose to deprecate PNO object properties that are not used unless we have clear use cases to make the PNO integration easily.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/237#issuecomment-792976199, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLSGTIYI7W2NZBZQ4CLTCUJY5ANCNFSM4UCP56KQ .

[zhengj2007]

Discussed on March 22nd, 2021 OBI call.

We agreed to integrate following PNO terms to IAO: IAO:0020000 identifier IAO:0020001 grapheme IAO:0020002 utterance IAO:0020010 dubbing process IAO:0020015 personal name IAO:0020016 given name IAO:0020017 family name IAO:0020020 code set

We discussed PNO:identifier, PNO:code set, IAO:symbol, and think

• PNO:identifier is a subClassOf IAO:symbol
• PNO:code set is not a data item, it is a sibling of IAO:symbol

Current IAO_0000579 'centrally registered identifier registry' is a 'data set' which seems incorrect. It should be 'code set' (consider renaming as 'code map').

Consider relabel IAO:0020010 as 'identifier creating process' with alternative name 'dubbing process'.

AI for Mathias: will create a branch, add PNO terms to IAO, make changes of IAO term parent when need, and make the pull request.

We will set another OBI call to review the changes.

@mbrochhausen Could you please check the notes and correct me if anything wrong? Thanks!

[mbrochhausen]

That is what I remember, too.

I will also add "naming" as an alternative term for "identifier creating process".

[mbrochhausen]

Sorry for taking so long on this. But now working on implementing the changes, I am reluctant to make identifier a subclass to symbol. The reason is that the definition of symbol implies that symbols are in some form graphic representation ("mark(s) or character(s) "). But not all identifiers are marks or characters or consist of them. Societies without a written language still have names (which are intended to be instances of identifiers).

[zhengj2007]

Discussed on OBI call 2021-08-09. We agreed with Mathias that 'identifier' should be subClass of 'information content entity'.

[pfabry]

Hi,

Do you have an ETA for the IAO release including personal name, family name and given name ?

Thanks, Paul Fabry

[mbrochhausen]

Paul, thanks for asking. We are working on creating a proposal file that contains PNO. Once that is done the IAO community will decide.

If you need this quickly, there is no inconsistency between PNO and IAO and hence, nothing should prevent you from just importing both ontologies into an OWL file.

Best, Mathias

[jmwhorton]

I have created a branch (integration/PNO) containing the listed changes for PNO integration:

Edited IAO:0020000 identifier, expanded class specification. Added IAO:0020001 grapheme. Added IAO:0020002 utterance. Added IAO:0020010 identifier creating process. Added IAO:0020015 personal name. Added IAO:0020016 given name. Added IAO:0020017 family name. Added IAO:0020020 code set. Moved IAO:0000579 (centrally registered identifier registry) under 'code set'. Added OBI:0100026 organism. Added NCBITaxon:9606 Homo sapiens.

I would like to point out that in addition to the specifically requested PNO classes, I also added 'organism' and 'Homo sapiens' as dependencies for 'personal name.'

@mbrochhausen, please feel free if there's any important information I may have missed.

[zhengj2007]

Reviewed pull request 256 on 2022-07-18 OBI call.

Following changes need to be made:

• remove logic axiom, 'is about' only 'Homo sapiens', associated with 'person name'. So, also need to revert changes on import
• update 'code set' definition, make it more general
• move IAO_0000579 'centrally registered identifier registry' under 'code set'

[jmwhorton]

Also from 2022-07-18 OBI call:

• Remove IAO:0020002 utterance