DwC Mapping - MIXS:0000028 biotic_relationship

[tucotuco]

Field	Value
subject_id	http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/associatedOrganisms
subject_definition	A list (concatenated and separated) of identifiers of other Organisms and their associations to this Organism.
subject_usage_notes
subject_examples	"sibling of":"DMNS:Mamm http://arctos.database.museum/guid/DMNS:Mamm:14171", "parent of":"MSB:Mamm http://arctos.database.museum/guid/MSB:Mamm:196208" | "parent of":"MSB:Mamm http://arctos.database.museum/guid/MSB:Mamm:196523" | "sibling of":"MSB:Mamm http://arctos.database.museum/guid/MSB:Mamm:142638"
predicate_id	skos:exactMatch
object_id	MIXS:0000028
object_label	biotic_relationship
object definition	Description of relationship(s) between the subject organism and other organism(s) it is associated with. E.g., parasite on species X; mutualist with species Y. The target organism is the subject of the relationship, and the other organism(s) is the object
object source	https://github.com/GenomicsStandardsConsortium/mixs-legacy/blob/master/mixs5/mixs_v5.xlsx
comment	One could also capture relationships with more metadata about the assertion using the ResourceRelationship extension to Darwin Core.

[raissameyer]

Suggested syntax predicate for the mapping above https://github.com/tdwg/gbwg/issues/19#issue-805168561

Field	Value
subject_id	http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/associatedOrganisms
subject_value_syntax - expected_value - unit	{"term"}:{"ID"}	{"term"}:{"ID"}	...
syntax_predicate_id	skos:relatedMatch
object_id	MIXS:0000028
object_value_syntax - expected_value - unit	[free living|parasitism|commensalism|symbiotic|mutualism] - enumeration
syntax_comment	DwC expects a list of terms and corresponding identifiers, while MIxS only expects a list of terms

DwC example:

"parent of":"MSB:Mamm http://arctos.database.museum/guid/MSB:Mamm:196208" | "parent of":"MSB:Mamm http://arctos.database.museum/guid/MSB:Mamm:196523"

[raissameyer]

The current mapping is based on the definition, however the definition and value syntax and example don't match:

As @cmungall noted, the range of the MIxS term is [free living|parasitism|commensalism|symbiotic|mutualism].

While the expectation created by the definition [parasite on species X; mutualist with species Y] would exactly match the DwC term, the examples given by MIxS do not.

Thus, we should consider revising the term (potentially to a skos:relatedMatch?)

[pbuttigieg]

Focusing on the MIxS value syntax, it would seem to me that the MIxS term is broader than the DwC term, as the latter will be more precise in any arbitrary case.

E.g. Some worm is a parasite of a clam DwC would capture parasite of clam MIxS would capture parasite of

[raissameyer]

As noted in the SSSOM guidance, skos:broadMatch "asserts that , the object of the triple, is a broader concept than, the subject of the triple"

As PLB noted above, the MIxS term is broader that the DwC term

Thus, our DwC (subject) --> MIxS (object) mapping would be a skos:broadMatch

I'll update our mapping files accordingly.