Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 12, 2019. It is now read-only.

Standardize how we indicate the relationship between a core class and its matching OBO one #2

Closed
cmungall opened this issue May 4, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@cmungall
Copy link

cmungall commented May 4, 2019

Currently we have been making notes as rdfs:comments but we should do this in a better way

If we believe they are truly equivalent then equivalentClasses is appropriate - however, this is a pain to work with in protege (since you induce a class declaration). I would vote for editing as a skos:exactMatch (we can avoid declaring a class). It could be converted to equivalence during release

For close matches, skos:closeMatch, otherwise rdfs:seeAlso?

Or we could make our own vocabulary for this?

@cmungall
Copy link
Author

cmungall commented May 4, 2019

Note we should also have a pipeline where we do an integration test with all ontologies that have an equivalence axiom

cmungall added a commit to cmungall/Experimental-OBO-Core that referenced this issue Jul 5, 2019
(b) external resources [sio,wikidata,biotop,mesh,...]
See beckyjackson#1
beckyjackson#2
Still to do OBOFoundry#14 UMLS

I also include an import in manual-core that brings in the matches;
we indicate these as skos annotations to avoid 'polluting' core
note a bug in the owlapi means we lose some axiom annotations on these.
@beckyjackson
Copy link
Owner

Migrated to OBOFoundry#23

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants