NTR: 'is contact information for' #778
Conversation
and dependencies.
jmwhorton
changed the title
|
There was consensus in #653 to add cc @cmungall @balhoff @bpeters42 @jamesaoverton @nataled @addiehl @matentzn |
|
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
<#653 (comment)>
in #653 <#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
<#778 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF6DLTZN522WERNQ44ZL3TY2GS6BAVCNFSM6AAAAABBHAN6NGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMRQHE4TONZQGM>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
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. |
|
Hi, can someone in the RO community please let me know, what I can or need to do to move this forward. Thx |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
I believe got stalled over whether to make it a subproperty if |
|
@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.) |
|
@jmwhorton I don't know ... I haven't looked at the PR in a long time too :) |
|
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) |
|
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
<#778 (comment)>).
To move forward, I suggest we add the term without adding is about to RO.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#778 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOOQZVY7POESPVWOYP3Z3PPLTAVCNFSM6AAAAABBHAN6NGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIMJRGU4TQNBXGI>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
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? |
|
Closing pull request. Term will possibly be submitted to IAO. |
Addresses issue #713