Relations for connecting processes to time measurements

[cmungall]

From: EnvironmentOntology/envo#577

Is OWL Time compatible with RO/BFO? What relation should connect a process boundary to a time point, or a process to an owl time interval? Is there a preferred scheme?

[pbuttigieg]

Some draft thoughts:

Every process (p) has at least two process boundaries, a beginning and an end.

Consider that a given p starts with and ends with a zero-dimensional temporal region. The start time point then precedes p and the end time point then ends p (although "ends" sounds a bit too causal).

The times themselves could be two cases of IAO's time measurement datum that are about the start and end time points. (This IAO relation may be of interest, but seems overly specific)

[cmungall]

So would the TSMD be connected to the process boundary via IAO's is_about? How would the IAO datum classes related to OWLTime? One view is that we ignore OWLTime as it's not OBO formalized but I think it's good to have at least a translation layer

…

On 25 Oct 2017, at 18:41, Pier Luigi Buttigieg wrote: Some draft thoughts: Every process (p) has at least two [process boundaries](http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000035), a beginning and an end. Consider that a given p [starts with]( http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002224) and [ends with](http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002230) a [zero-dimensional temporal region](http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000148). The start time point then [precedes](http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000063) p and the end time point then [ends](http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002229) p (although "ends" sounds a bit too causal). The times themselves could be two cases of IAO's [time measurement datum](http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000416) that are about the start and end time points. ([This IAO relation](http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000581) may be of interest, but seems overly specific) -- You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #218 (comment)

[pbuttigieg]

So would the TSMD be connected to the process boundary via IAO's
is_about?

Yes.

How would the IAO datum classes related to OWLTime? One view is that we
ignore OWLTime as it's not OBO formalized but I think it's good to have
at least a translation layer

I think translating or at least a "hard wired" mapping via an AP is good as there are many users of OWLTime. I think IAO would need to create explicit equivalent classes to OWLTime's content, with the OBO formalisms. Shall we ping them?

[pbuttigieg]

Every process (p) has at least two process boundaries, a beginning and an end.

Consider that a given p starts with and ends with a zero-dimensional temporal region. The start time point then precedes p and the end time point then ends p (although "ends" sounds a bit too causal).

Do we need to express that the process boundary is the ZDTR?

[dosumis]

I'd certainly be in favor of making a bridge between the two. From a quick look, I'd say that the OWL Time classes should be treated as more general than the BFO ones.

BFO:'process boundary' SubClassOf https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time:Instant
BFO:'process' SubClassOf https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time:Interval

OR they could be linked by a 'has temporal extent' relation.

The latest OWL Time also has Allen interval relations (although unfortunately not the composition table as property chains). A mapping here might be useful too.

CC @Public-Health-Bioinformatics

[hoganwr]

In BFO a process boundary is distinct from a temporal instant. In particular, BFO calls temporal instants "zero dimensional temporal region".

So it would be more correct to say:
BFO:'zero-dimensional temporal region' rdfs:subClassOf https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time:Instant

or possibly even: BFO:'zero-dimensional temporal region' owl:equivalentClass https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time:Instant

or more accurately: http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000148 owl:equivalentClass <https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time/#time:Instant

[cmungall]

Thanks! Where should these axioms live? A bridge ontology distributed with BFO?

Happy to host from an RO purl in the short term, since we're set up for frequently releases

[nlharris]

What needs to be done to finish this?

[nlharris]

Is this still needed or can we close it?

[nlharris]

Closing as won't do; reopen if needed.