Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

'is about' cannot be used for 'response to' classes #166

Open
tgbugs opened this issue May 22, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

'is about' cannot be used for 'response to' classes #166

tgbugs opened this issue May 22, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@tgbugs
Copy link

tgbugs commented May 22, 2018

EFO has added a couple of 'is about' axioms to GO response to terms, for example 'response to cisplatin' . 'is about' cannot be used in these settings due the the reasoning chain shown below (is about is for information content entities). The appropriate predicate is probably 'has participant' if you want to make the link explicit, however that may not be correct because the response may come later in time than the presence of the participant, in which case another way to model the process would be required.
efo-bug

There are a couple of other issues that are similar to this that can be revealed by running elk on a combined import of efo and obi.

@simonjupp
Copy link
Collaborator

We've been using 'is about' for a different purpose in EFO for some legacy reasons relating to how EFO is used in the GWAS catalog. This is a known issue and we're working on some new design patterns for this.

There's a related ticket in #8 and some work in progress on the design patterns here https://github.com/simonjupp/efo3-creator/blob/master/designpatterns/responseToDrug_hasInput_chemicalEntity.yaml

@dosumis
Copy link
Collaborator

dosumis commented Sep 24, 2021

@zoependlington @kallia-p @matentzn - we should probably be stripping these is_about links out as part of work on this branch. ('has input' is the correct relation - based on GO schema).

@kallia-p
Copy link
Collaborator

@dosumis Thanks for pointing this out. I have linked this to the main response to terms ticket. #32

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants