search

oborel / obo-relations

RO is an ontology of relations for use with biological ontologies
http://oborel.github.io/
Other
94 stars 47 forks source link

NTR: 'is contact information for' #778

Closed jmwhorton closed 4 weeks ago

jmwhorton commented 11 months ago

Addresses issue #713

wdduncan commented 8 months ago

is contact information is a subproperty of is about. However, is about is not included in RO.

There was consensus in #653 to add is about, but to give it an RO id. @mbrochhausen would a different cause issues for you? I am concerned about having a different IRI for such a widely used relation.

cc @cmungall @balhoff @bpeters42 @jamesaoverton @nataled @addiehl @matentzn

mbrochhausen commented 8 months ago

From the perspective of 'is contact information for", "is about" having an RO id does not create an issue for me.

I do agree that there might be concerned about changing the id of "is about". Would this change be coordinate with IAO or OBI to ensure we don't end up with two "is about" object properties in the OBO Foundry?

Best, Mathias

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 12:03 PM Bill Duncan @.***> wrote:

is contact information is a subproperty of is about http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000136. However, is about is not included in RO.

There was consensus https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/653#issuecomment-1677610127 in #653 https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/653 to add is about, but to give it an RO id. @mbrochhausen https://github.com/mbrochhausen would a different cause issues for you? I am concerned about having a different IRI for such a widely used relation.

cc @cmungall https://github.com/cmungall @balhoff https://github.com/balhoff @bpeters42 https://github.com/bpeters42 @jamesaoverton https://github.com/jamesaoverton @nataled https://github.com/nataled @addiehl https://github.com/addiehl @matentzn https://github.com/matentzn

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/pull/778#issuecomment-2020997703, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLTZN522WERNQ44ZL3TY2GS6BAVCNFSM6AAAAABBHAN6NGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMRQHE4TONZQGM . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

github-actions[bot] commented 5 months ago

This PR has not seen any activity in 90 days and has been marked as stale. If it is no longer needed, please close the PR. Otherwise, please update the PR with a status update.

mbrochhausen commented 5 months ago

Hi,

can someone in the RO community please let me know, what I can or need to do to move this forward. Thx

github-actions[bot] commented 1 month ago

This PR has not seen any activity in 90 days and has been marked as stale. If it is no longer needed, please close the PR. Otherwise, please update the PR with a status update.

jmwhorton commented 1 month ago

What needs to be done on this PR? The last update was from @mbrochhausen in June, asking what is needed to move this forward.

@wdduncan or @anitacaron Could you please let us know what we can do?

Thank you.

wdduncan commented 1 month ago

I believe got stalled over whether to make it a subproperty if is about (above). To move forward, I suggest we add the term without adding is about to RO.

jmwhorton commented 1 month ago

@wdduncan Please correct me if I'm mistaken. That would mean we don't have to change the pull request, correct? (Apologies, I haven't looked at this in quite a while.)

wdduncan commented 1 month ago

@jmwhorton I don't know ... I haven't looked at the PR in a long time too :)

jmwhorton commented 1 month ago

That is fair! The relevant detail is that the new term is listed as a sub object property of IAO 'is about'. Can that be left in?

SubObjectPropertyOf(obo:RO_0017007 obo:IAO_0000136)

cmungall commented 1 month ago

I am against striping, this creates import issues. The whole hierarchy should go in one ontology or the other

On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 8:28 AM Bill Duncan @.***> wrote:

I believe got stalled over whether to make it a subproperty if is about ( above https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/pull/778#issuecomment-2020997703). To move forward, I suggest we add the term without adding is about to RO.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/pull/778#issuecomment-2411598472, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOOQZVY7POESPVWOYP3Z3PPLTAVCNFSM6AAAAABBHAN6NGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIMJRGU4TQNBXGI . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

mbrochhausen commented 1 month ago

I see Chris' point. I agree it might be better to submit it to IAO. We will happily do so, unless this generates an issue with OBO Foundry Principle 7 downstream. The way I read that principle, if a relation, such as 'is about' does not exist in RO, we can reuse that relations and its subproperties without being in violation of OBO Foundry principles. Is that correct?

jmwhorton commented 4 weeks ago

Closing pull request. Term will possibly be submitted to IAO.