clarifying the difference between CHMO:"assay output" and IAO:"measurement datum"

[StroemPhi]

When comparing the annotations of CHMO:assay output and IAO:measurement datum , I noticed the following:

• the textual definitions seem to be expressing the same:
  • An information content entity that is output by an assay. &
  • A measurement datum is an information content entity that is a recording of the output of a measurement such as produced by a device
• the textual definitions of both differ from the logical ones in terms of the former defining ICE as genus and the latter "data item".
• "assay output" has the equivalence to axiom: data item and is_specified_output_of some assay vs this axiom is only provided as editor note from 2009 with question mark on "measurement datum"
• the OBI docs also define the subclasses of "measurement datum" very similar to "assay output":

  A ‘measurement datum’ class names and models the datum outputs of an assay, and their contextual semantics.

So the main question is:

• Why is "meassurement datum" not reused in CHMO instead of minting "assay output"?

I can only imagine because of the need for the equivalence to axiom. But then I wonder, why is this not not provided in IAO (see IAO#225)?

[batchelorc]

Hmm - I think we should just use 'measurement datum' instead. Should have captured the reasoning for the choice at the time!

[StroemPhi]

Let's wait for what the IAO devs or maybe someone from the OBI team will say to this. But yes, switching to "measurement datum" was also my first idea. IDK though if this will lead to trouble down the road concerning the axiomatization in CHMO.

[StroemPhi]

Concerning the decision in IAO (see https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO/issues/255#issuecomment-1476592513), I propose to obsolete CHMO:assay output and replace it with IAO:measurement datum once the axiom has been added to IAO.