RCC5 relation intersects

[mdoering]

Looking at the current values for the taxon concept relations in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bcfjhh0ztmXKz7P9G0ni7vYZc3MtH4LLxlCZjswF2k4/edit#

I see that there are 6 RCC5 relations:

• excludes
• overlaps
• isCongruentTo
• includes
• isIncludedIn
• intersects

It seems intersects is added as another one. What is the intention? If its needed it should be made clear that this is not a standard RCC5 relationship. A mapping to the standard names and symbols would be useful too.

[camwebb]

@mdoering Please refer to this issue, where the matter was discussed. I agree that intersects is not a RCC-5 relationship. I'm not sure we need the subheading 'RCC-5 relationships' under 'Relationship Types'; removing it would help prevent the concern you raise.

[nielsklazenga]

Sorry @mdoering, @camwebb, the subheading was a leftover from when the Taxon Relationship Assertions comprised set relationships, hierarchical relationships, etc. and before we added (or proposed to add) intersects. Now that we only have the one category of relationship types left we do not need the subheadings anymore, so I have followed @camwebb 's suggestion and removed it.

[nielsklazenga]

I have put the following mapping into the document:

• is congruent to: Equal – EQ(x,y)
• includes: Proper part (inverse) – PPi(x,y)
• is included in: Proper part – PP(x,y)
• overlaps: Partially overlapping – PO(x,y)
• excludes: Disjoint – DR(x,y)

[mdoering]

Great, thanks!