Search Mailing List Archives
[bioontology-support] Help with Submission
jgraybeal at stanford.edu
Wed Jan 24 19:58:36 PST 2018
I might add a few thoughts to Jennifer's summary.
My bias in such things is to make the ontology correct (i.e., do not misrepresent partOf relationships as subclasses, because it messes up any inferencing that people may want to do (and maybe quite important research, too). It's better to 'force' the tools to improve than to create improper data artifacts, even if it is painful.
Re the visualization, I understand the Protege team may be working on an improved visual presentation of tree hierarchies, partly to address this issue—I just saw a note to that effect in another list, but haven't asked the team. If that's the case, we would definitely see if leveraging that code for BioPortal could be possible, though it wouldn't happen quickly.
Regarding the proposed idea to publish them privately at first—since you don't know which one you'll make public, you won't know which one to give the correct acronym. I'd give them both 'fake' acronyms, then republish the one you like publicly under the correct acronym. (We could delete the private ones afterwards, that would be best for BioPortal.)
And finally, a really bad suggestion given my bias above: if you basically _added_ a subclass relation for each partOf relation, if the ontology parsed (not sure if it could), you'd have both worlds—a hierarchical view and still being able to see the partOf relations. But I really hope you don't do that.
On Jan 24, 2018, at 5:18 PM, Jennifer Leigh Vendetti <vendetti at stanford.edu<mailto:vendetti at stanford.edu>> wrote:
On Jan 22, 2018, at 1:59 PM, Pan, Huaqin (Helen) <hpan at rti.org<mailto:hpan at rti.org>> wrote:
I am working on another project that developed an ontology that I will submit soon. It’s currently available at our project site, https://lungmap.net/breath-ontology-browser/.
Here is my questions. Due to the fact that owl/Protégé display the hierarchical relation only for “subclass-of”, not “part-of”, I have developed 2 versions of the ontology in .owl for each ontology, and I need your guidance on which version to submit. I have seen both on BioPortal.
My expertise is on the software development side of things with regard to BioPortal. It’s difficult for me to comment on which version of your ontology the biomedical community might find more useful.
* Version 1 with exclusive “subclass_of” – Pros: display the hierarchical relationships among the classes, Cons: lacks the biological distinction of “part-of” and “subclass_of”
* Version 2 with mix of “part-of” and “subclass_of” – Cons: lacks the display of hierarchical relationships among the classes, Pros: captures the biological distinction of “part-of” and “subclass_of”
We used version 2 (part-of and subclass-of) for the project site, with some rules to enable the display properly for “part-of”.
One option I can suggest would be for you to create two separate ontology entries in BioPortal for your versions 1 and 2 above. You could initially make the viewing restriction “private”, which would give you the opportunity to view them and decide which seems better for your needs / use cases. After you’ve made your decision, we could remove whichever one you decide not to publish, and change the viewing restriction of your preferred ontology to “public”.
bioontology-support mailing list
bioontology-support at lists.stanford.edu<mailto:bioontology-support at lists.stanford.edu>
Technical Program Manager
Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval /+/ NCBO BioPortal
Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bioontology-support