[Ontology-editors] [OBO-Edit Working Group] Disjoint_from and symmetry

[Jane Lomax]

I don't really think this is a problem - the individual stanzas don't 
tell you, for example, what children a term has - the whole file needs 
to be loaded to reason that. I don't see this as being any different...

Jane

David Hill wrote:
> Hi Jen,
>
> Isn't this more of a display issue? I know that I've heard a lot of 
> folks say that they don't like the graphical display as it stands with 
> the disjoint relationships. If we don't include the relationship in the 
> stanzas of both terms, how will we represent it for the term where the 
> relationship is not indicated?  Does anyone use the obo stanzas in 
> isolation? For example, does anyone use the obo file to simply ask show 
> me what the realtionships of term X are to other terms. If they do, they 
> probably harvest this info from the stanza of the term of interest.
>
> David
>
> Jennifer Deegan (nee Clark) wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> The OBO-Edit working group would like to propose a small change to the 
>> way that disjoint relationships are handled.
>>
>> Currently when two terms are disjoint_from one another they each have 
>> a disjoint_from relationship to the other as follows.
>>
>> term1
>> disjoint_from: term 2
>>
>> term2
>> disjoint_from: term 1
>>
>> However, since the disjoint_from relationship is symmetrical, it 
>> should not really be necessary to have two relationships connecting 
>> two disjoint terms, and the two terms should be able to share one 
>> disjoint relationship. This is apparently how the situation is handled 
>> in OWL and protege.
>>
>> We would like to propose to start having just one relationship shared 
>> between each pair of terms, as it is thought that this will greatly 
>> simplify the handling of the relationships in OBO-Edit.
>> We would like to hear what people think about this.
>>
>> In our discussion last night we did not discuss how the OBO stanza 
>> will look if there is only one relationship. We would need to discuss 
>> that further, and I would be keen to hear ideas in response to this mail.
>>
>> Thanks for taking the time to think about this. If we do not hear 
>> objections by Friday of this week, then we will proceed to the next 
>> stage of planning.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jennifer
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>> Ontology-editors mailing list
>> Ontology-editors at geneontology.org
>> http://fafner.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/ontology-editors
>>     
>
>   


-- 
Dr Jane Lomax
GO Editorial Office
EMBL-EBI
Wellcome Trust Genome Campus
Hinxton
Cambridgeshire, UK
CB10 1SD

p: +44 1223 492516
f: +44 1223 494468