WWF biome

[cmungall]

I don’t think WWF biome is a good term for an OBO ontology

./ ENVO:00000428 ! biome [DEF: “A major class of ecologically similar communities of plants, animals, and other organisms. Biomes are defined based on factors such as plant structures (such as trees, shrubs, and grasses), leaf types (such as broadleaf and needleleaf), plant spacing (forest, woodland, savanna), and other factors like climate. Unlike ecozones, biomes are not defined by genetic, taxonomic, or historical similarities. Biomes are often identified with particular patterns of ecological succession and climax vegetation.”]
..is_a ENVO:00000446 ! terrestrial biome [DEF: “A biome that applies to the terrestrial realm.”]
…is_a ENVO:00002038 ! WWF biome
….is_a ENVO:00000874 ! Tundra biome *

envo should define “tundra biome” according to OBO principles (e.g. a biome located_in a tundra), we can then attach metadata properties such as “WWF designated” to these.

Original comment by: cmungall

[pbuttigieg]

The biome story has matured (and also given rise to new complications) since the original post.

envo should define “tundra biome” according to OBO principles (e.g. a biome located_in a tundra), we can then attach metadata properties such as “WWF designated” to these.

This is tricky as the tundra and tundra biome are not really separable.

we can then attach metadata properties such as “WWF designated” to these.

This is still desirable - what's the right annotation property to use here?

[cmungall]

I suppose we could just use the existing subset mechanism, e.g. as for envo-gsc-lite

[pbuttigieg]

Added a wiki page to track this.