Search Mailing List Archives
[bioontology-support] Fwd: IDO, etc. problem with definitions
whetzel at stanford.edu
Wed Apr 11 12:27:51 PDT 2012
Based on the property specified to contain the term definition, the metrics for terms without a definition are correct. The BFO terms are counted as not having a definition since these terms use the "rdfs:comment" property for the definition and there are a few other groups of terms that do not have a definition, e.g. obsolete terms, NCBI Taxon terms.
In past cases of a need to use more than 1 property to represent synonyms, e.g. different types of synonyms (abbreviation, code), the request was to represent these as sub-properties. Ray, would using sub-properties be the suggestion in this case?
On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:09 PM, Trish Whetzel wrote:
> Hi Barry,
> The property specified for the definitions in IDO is:
> I'll run some additional checks to confirm the definition count.
> In the meantime, Lindsay is http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000115 the property for definitions in IDO?
> On Apr 5, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Barry Smith wrote:
>> I notice that IDO is said to have 184 terms without definitions. I believe that the reason for this is that Bioportal does not recognize the 'has_definition' label, which is what IDO (and OGMS, and OBI, and BFO ...) uses to link a term to its definition. Can you include this annotation property in your count of classes with definitions?
>> bioontology-support mailing list
>> bioontology-support at lists.stanford.edu
> bioontology-support mailing list
> bioontology-support at lists.stanford.edu
Trish Whetzel, PhD
The National Center for Biomedical Ontology
"Like" NCBO on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/bioontology
Follow NCBO on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/bioontology
Join in Discussions on LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/ncbo-group
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bioontology-support