Skip to content

Remove spatial disjointness AP on PNS/CNS.#2202

Merged
gouttegd merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
cns-pns-disjointness
Dec 1, 2021
Merged

Remove spatial disjointness AP on PNS/CNS.#2202
gouttegd merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
cns-pns-disjointness

Conversation

@gouttegd
Copy link
Collaborator

peripheral nervous system carries a spatially_mutually_disjoint_with annotation to express the spatial disjointness between the PNS and the CNS.

That spatial disjointness is already expressed as a general class axiom (in src/ontology/components/disjoint_union_over.ofn) though, so the annotation is redundant.

closes #2174

'peripheral nervous system' carries a 'spatially_mutually_disjoint_with'
annotation to express the spatial disjointness between the PNS and the
CNS.

That spatial disjointness is already expressed as a general class axiom
(in src/ontology/components/disjoint_union_over.ofn) though, so the
annotation is redundant.

closes #2174
@gouttegd gouttegd self-assigned this Nov 30, 2021
@gouttegd gouttegd requested a review from dosumis November 30, 2021 18:32
@gouttegd
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@dosumis This is what has been decided in the last Uberon call, however I note that the mutually_spatially_disjoint_with annotation carries some extra informations – specifically the fact that the disjointness is not valid for the ZFA ontology:

relationship: mutually_spatially_disjoint_with UBERON:0001017 {exceptions="ZFA", source="https://github.com/obophenotype/uberon/issues/378", status="pending"} ! central nervous system

Removing the annotation to only keep the general class axiom would mean losing this bit of information. Is that desirable?

It does not seem that the exceptions value is used anywhere, so I assume it is only here for the benefit of Uberon editors, so that they are reminded of the conflict between ZFA and Uberon on the CNS/PNS disjointness issue.

@dosumis
Copy link
Contributor

dosumis commented Nov 30, 2021

It does not seem that the exceptions value is used anywhere, so I assume it is only here for the benefit of Uberon editors, so that they are reminded of the conflict between ZFA and Uberon on the CNS/PNS disjointness issue.

I think that's correct. The logic does not allow for exceptions. You could always retain this annotation on the GCI if you want to preserve it.

Copy link
Contributor

@dosumis dosumis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If you wish to retain the annotation on the axiom, you could do so as a comment on the GCI. Your call.

@gouttegd gouttegd merged commit cc2168e into master Dec 1, 2021
@gouttegd gouttegd deleted the cns-pns-disjointness branch December 1, 2021 16:20
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Double specification of CNS-PNS disjointness

2 participants