Reassessing symbiosis and parasite of

[Archilegt]

It came up that parasite of is considered a symbiotic interaction in RO, the latter being defined as “a biotic interaction in which the two organisms live together in more or less intimate association”.
This is at odds with the meaning of symbiosis among some ecological communities of practice and teaching.
Nicolas wrote: "I think it has already been discussed in a past comment. If I remember well, americans and europeans have different conceptions, but it is now commonly accepted that parasitism is a type of symbiotic interaction"
I wrote: "In Latin America symbiosis and parasitism are mutually exclusive. One is a +/+ and the other is a +/- ecological interaction. This is taught at secondary level Biology (students aged 12-15, so basically the entire population) and tertiary level (15-18). I would recommend not to impose the USA/English language perspective to everyone else. Note the difference between the English and Spanish symbiosis pages in Wikipedia. The English version calls everything symbiosis and "widely accepted". When one reads the Spanish version, it is easy to see that that is not so but the English language case."
Solution proposed by Nicolas: "Still, the modification of the property hierarchy is the responsibility of the Relations Ontology. We may have to consider opening an issue on their tracker. What is within our reach is modifying the concepts hierarchy: then we have to decide whether or not parasite is a subclass of symbiotroph (defined as "heterotroph that acquires nutrition from a symbiont")"