Closed tnetx closed 2 hours ago
These are OWL GCIs & are doing useful work.
id: CL:0000163 name: endocrine cell is_a: CL:0000164 {gci_relation="part_of", gci_filler="UBERON:0000945"} ! enteroendocrine cell
=>
OWL: endocrine cell and part_of some stomach subClassof enteroendocrine cell English: All endocrine cells that are part of the stomach are enteroendoctine cells
The representation in OBO is potentially misleading.
@dosumis I do indeed think it's misleading. Would it be preferable to state it as relationship: part_of: UBERON:0000945 on the enteroendocrine Term instead?
id: CL:0000164
name: enteroendocrine cell
is_a: CL:0000163 ! endocrine cell
...
relationship: part_of: UBERON:0000945 ! stomach
It is not true that all enteroendocrine cells are part of the stomach, some are part of the pancreas, so "relationship: part_of: UBERON:0000945 ! stomach" would be incorrect .The OWL expression allows us to assert both part relationships and use the3m to autoclassify endocrine cells as enteroendocrine.
The issue is not with the assertions but with confusion caused by the OBO representation.
Could you let us know what you are trying to achieve? You may not need to use the OBO file.
CL term Seen in https://github.com/obophenotype/cell-ontology/blob/v2024-09-26/cl.obo
Suggested revision of class hierarchy
There seems to be a circular parent-child hierarchy between
CL:0000163
(endocrine cell) andCL:0000164
(enteroendocrine cell). Are the is_a relationships fromCL:0000163
toCL:0000164
autogenerated? It seems that onlyCL:0000164
should be "is_a"CL:0000163
.