Potential issue with inverses in RO

[GoogleCodeExporter]

RO currently uses BFO_0000052:inheres_in and declares its inverse to be 
BFO_0000053:is_bearer_of

In the current bfo.owl file, this IRIs are BFO_0000052:inheres_in_at_all_times 
and BFO_0000053:bearer_of_at_some_time

Those relations are not inverse of each other; there is a chance that by using 
the new BFO the change on the RO side would be silent (IRIs are the same) but 
RO would end up asserting a wrong inverse between those 2.

Submitting in the BFO tracker as (1) Chris will have access to it (2) the BFO 
OWL dev group may want to make a note of this point in the release notes for 
other resources to check

Original issue reported on code.google.com by mcour...@gmail.com on 29 Jun 2012 at 4:31

• Merged into: #165

[GoogleCodeExporter]

We looked at BFO IDs that were used in RO - see list in release notes 
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/bfo/2012-07-20/ReleaseNotes

Original comment by mcour...@gmail.com on 24 Jul 2012 at 2:00

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This is a duplicate of http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=165 (which 
contains some additional details)

Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com on 24 Apr 2013 at 7:56

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by mcour...@gmail.com on 24 Apr 2013 at 8:15

• Changed state: Duplicate