Using CHEBI roles

[pbuttigieg]

@cmungall as CHEBI roles are not exactly BFO roles, is it acceptable to use the RO 'has role' to create an axiom like:

atmospheric water vapour 'has role' some greenhouse gas

[cmungall]

I think we can use them how we like, they are uncommitted in CHEBI, so go ahead

However, I already expressed reservations about CHEBI greenhouse gas. It's named as if it's a material entity, this will cause confusion.

I think we are better defining our own class greenhouse gas disposition (even this is somewhat disposable: all we really need are the processes and the chemical entities, we can link the latter to the former via dispositional relationships).

After this I could put an axiom into https://github.com/cmungall/chiro -- which acts as a bridge between the somewhat odd and mixed role hierarchy in CHEBI to meaningful axioms connecting a diversity of other OBO ontologies.

[pbuttigieg]

Great! Didn't know about CHIRO . I see the point with process-role
redundancy, but thinking of supporting different query flavours (unless we
can somehow expose the equivalency automatically)
On 29 Jan 2016 16:23, "Chris Mungall" notifications@github.com wrote:

I think we can use them how we like, they are uncommitted in CHEBI, so go
ahead

However, I already expressed reservations about CHEBI greenhouse gas.
It's named as if it's a material entity, this will cause confusion.

I think we are better defining our own class greenhouse gas disposition
(even this is somewhat disposable: all we really need are the processes and
the chemical entities, we can link the latter to the former via
dispositional relationships).

After this I could put an axiom into https://github.com/cmungall/chiro --
which acts as a bridge between the somewhat odd and mixed role hierarchy in
CHEBI to meaningful axioms connecting a diversity of other OBO ontologies.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#287 (comment)
.