Please consider adding has_beneficiary/beneficiary_of relation

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Please consider adding a relation has_beneficiary and/or its inverse, 
beneficiary_of.  You could imagine this being used with something like:

id: GO:0051702
name: interaction with symbiont
is_a: GO:0044419 ! interspecies interaction between organisms

id: GO:0051816
name: acquisition of nutrients from other organism during symbiotic interaction
is_a: GO:0007631 ! feeding behavior

It would be a child of id: RO:0000087 name: has role, or of the old Relation 
Ontology has_participant relation.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kevin.co...@gmail.com on 11 Nov 2014 at 1:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I suggest using one of the terms in RO's "biotically interacts with" branch, 
which has many descendant relations including symbiosis, parasitism, and 
mutualism:

http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002437

I'm going to close this as wontfix. If none of those terms work for you, please 
reopen the issue with more details about your use case.

Original comment by ja...@overton.ca on 21 Nov 2014 at 4:19

• Changed state: WontFix

[GoogleCodeExporter]

When you say to open a new issue, do you mean to re-open this one, or to file a 
new one?  I don't see a way to re-open a closed issue.

Original comment by kevin.co...@gmail.com on 21 Nov 2014 at 4:54

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Sorry, "reopen" is an option in other issue tracker systems. I guess in Google 
Code only project members can change the issue status. My mistake.

Can you provide a case for which none of those relations apply?

Original comment by ja...@overton.ca on 21 Nov 2014 at 5:30