changing term label on digit skeleton terms

[alex-dececchi]

Currently the digit related term labels leading to confusion and inconsistency in annotation. For example the similar sounding and not intuitively different terms "pedal digit digitopodium skeleton" (which has the synonym "pedal digit skeleton") denotes a different structure than "skeleton of pedal digitopodium". The first is just the acropodial skeleton, the second the acropodial and metapodial skeleton. The adds an level of complexity and unnecessary presenting the opportunity for incorrect annotations contributing, significantly in my opinion, to intercurator variability.

To alleviate this I propose we replace "pedal digit # skeleton" and "pedal digit # digitopodium skeleton" , where # denotes a digit number, with the term "phalangeal skeleton of digit # " so that annotators can clearly see that this entity corresponds to the phalangeal bones only. I propose we extend this framework to all entities where digit is used, except perhaps the term "digit" itself given the historical use of the term and is ubiquity in existing data across sources. This re-labeling will permit a clear demarcation for annotators to efficiently record authors original intend regarding the ambiguous term "digit" as either the phalangeal skeleton only or to include the metapodials as well.

[RDruzinsky]

Seems reasonable to me.

Robert E. Druzinsky, Ph.D. Clinical Associate Professor Dept. of Oral Biology College of Dentistry University of Illinois at Chicago 801 S. Paulina Chicago, IL 60612 druzinsk@uic.edu

Office: 312-996-0406 Lab: 312-996-0629

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:19 AM, alex-dececchi notifications@github.comwrote:

Currently the digit related term labels leading to confusion and inconsistency in annotation. For example the similar sounding and not intuitively different terms "pedal digit digitopodium skeleton" (which has the synonym "pedal digit skeleton") denotes a different structure than "skeleton of pedal digitopodium". The first is just the acropodial skeleton, the second the acropodial and metapodial skeleton. The adds an level of complexity and unnecessary presenting the opportunity for incorrect annotations contributing, significantly in my opinion, to intercurator variability.

To alleviate this I propose we replace "pedal digit # skeleton" and "pedal digit # digitopodium skeleton" , where # denotes a digit number, with the term "phalangeal skeleton of digit # " so that annotators can clearly see that this entity corresponds to the phalangeal bones only. I propose we extend this framework to all entities where digit is used, except perhaps the term "digit" itself given the historical use of the term and is ubiquity in existing data across sources. This re-labeling will permit a clear demarcation for annotators to efficiently record authors original intend regarding the ambiguous term "digit" as either the phalangeal skeleton only or to include the metapodials as well.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/obophenotype/uberon/issues/453 .

[cmungall]

1. "pedal digit # skeleton" ==> "phalangeal skeleton of digit #" sounds great
2. "pedal digit # digitopodium skeleton" ==> "phalangeal skeleton of digit #" did you mean this?

I can go ahead with 1, but for 2, this class is defined to include a metapodial. I think your preferred solution is

• "pedal digit # digitopodium skeleton" ==> "digit # skeleton"

And we can certainly make a COMPARATIVE_PREFERRED tag for this synonym. I'm still a little reluctant to make this the primary label. I appreciate the point that the "skeletal" qualifier acts as a partial disambiguator, so perhaps this is fine.

Let me know if I've misunderstood this part

[gouttegd]

WARNING: This issue has been automatically closed because it has not been updated in more than 3 years. Please re-open it if you still need this to be addressed addressed addressed – we are now getting some resources to deal with such issues.