Which foundational ontology to use?

[cmaumet]

This follows discussions started on the NIDASH call and a more recent comment by @khelm in #236 regarding the use of a foundational ontology. Currently:

• NIDM-Results is not based on a foundational ontology but re-use OBI and STATO terms which are based on OBO.
• @nicholsn's first owl file for NIDM-experiment (cf. #236) is not based on a foundational ontology.
• @khelm's initial effort on DICOM terms was based on DOLCE (following ontoneurolog).

It seems like we should use the same ground to build all the NIDM components but I am unsure which one should be preferred. We might want to have a small working group to review the possible alternatives and make suggestions?

[nicholsn]

@nicholsn's first owl file for NIDM-experiment (cf. #236) is based on SIO.

quick correction, nidm-experiment is not based on a foundational ontology - just prov-o. it does share similar concepts but none of the classes are derived from SIO. A main difference is that SIO is about assays and nidm-experiement is about original acquisition.

During the visit at Stanford, we'll get a chance to talk to the SIO inventor.

Agreed that we need to make a design decision about a common foundation for all nidm-components if we want to keep our models logically consistent.

[cmaumet]

Thanks @nicholsn for the clarification. [I have amended my first comment for a clearer view of the issue].