OBOFoundry.github.io
OBOFoundry.github.io copied to clipboard
OBOFoundry
Principle #5 "Scope"
Current wording:
NOTE
The wording of this principle is still in progress, with some issues still to be addressed (see Issues To Be Addressed below).
Summary
The scope of an ontology is the extent of the domain or subject matter it intends to cover. The ontology must have a clearly specified scope and content that adheres to that scope.
Purpose
An in-scope ontology prevents overlaps between ontologies (duplication of terms), facilitates user searches for specific content, and enables quick selection of ontologies of interest, yet still allows for new terms to be created via combination of existing terms (cross-products).
Implementation
The domain (scope) covered by the ontology should be clearly stated. The statement should be brief and free of jargon; a few sentences should suffice. The content of the ontology should stay within the confines of the stated scope.
Recommendations
Ideally the scope should be fairly narrow. Required terms that are out of scope should be imported from the appropriate ontology.
Issues To Be Addressed (partial list):
- Would like a metadata tag in the ontology itself for this. TBD.
- Possible need for controlled vocabulary for scope/domain (for example: Anatomy, Upper Level Ontology, Disease, Phenotype, Applicable taxonomy)
Current scope field is free text. I think it would be good to provide controlled vocabulary. It will be easy for users to find the ontologies that they may be interested in.
For my work to submit new term requests to OBO ontologies, I went through all the OBO ontologies and tagged them using few keywords for identifying which more appropriate ontology I should go. That's why I think if we can tag the ontology using controlled vocabulary in scope field will be very helpful.
This file shows the tags I assigned to OBO Foundry ontologies. It may be useful for creating the controlled vocabulary for scope. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pnsRsZluXcBlMqLfPmcCxXiiKxkr3s-nmuNve3kRMhE/edit#gid=78923188
Oh, I didnt see @zhengj2007 that you already did quite a good amount of work on this.. I wanted to propose something similar a while back:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fitsa5ZWKR_fidG0zC_eQIZDhmPXDpkG_oiql6nCDRo/edit?usp=sharing
Maybe we can reconcile this, or just go for your suggestion.. How do we move this forward?
Please note that this issue is focused on the wording of the Scope principle. The ensuing discussion is more related to the call for categorization mentioned in issues #19 and #547, though neither of those was about the categorization itself (though #19 gave a start).
I recommend moving the categorization discussion to a new issue. However, bear in mind that the creation of the COB somewhat mitigates the need for this.
I think they can work together. Nico's proposal will help partition the ontologies into JEPD sets of roughly balanced size. Adding additional tags will be useful for search. I think both OLS and AberOWL teams have worked on the latter, using EDAM
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 6:21 AM Nico Matentzoglu [email protected] wrote:
Oh, I didnt see @zhengj2007 https://github.com/zhengj2007 that you already did quite a good amount of work on this.. I wanted to propose something similar a while back:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fitsa5ZWKR_fidG0zC_eQIZDhmPXDpkG_oiql6nCDRo/edit?usp=sharing
Maybe we can reconcile this, or just go for your suggestion.. How do we move this forward?
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/965#issuecomment-646012875, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOOVKRQLYHLDN7QQE7DRXIIEZANCNFSM4IJL7RNQ .
I moved this here: https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/1225
