Add `ncbitaxon:has_division` property.
This partially addresses #132
I have made minor tweaks to the code where I capture division properties from NCBITaxon's division.dmp file and add the property to all relevant classes.
Homo Sapiens class now looks like this
<!-- http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_9606 -->
<owl:Class rdf:about="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_9606">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_9605"/>
<ncbitaxon:has_division rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_Primates"/>
<ncbitaxon:has_rank rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_species"/>
<oboInOwl:hasDbXref>GC_ID:1</oboInOwl:hasDbXref>
<oboInOwl:hasExactSynonym>human</oboInOwl:hasExactSynonym>
<oboInOwl:hasOBONamespace>ncbi_taxonomy</oboInOwl:hasOBONamespace>
<rdfs:label>Homo sapiens</rdfs:label>
</owl:Class>
<owl:Axiom>
<owl:annotatedSource rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_9606"/>
<owl:annotatedProperty rdf:resource="http://www.geneontology.org/formats/oboInOwl#hasExactSynonym"/>
<owl:annotatedTarget>human</owl:annotatedTarget>
<oboInOwl:hasSynonymType rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ncbitaxon#genbank_common_name"/>
</owl:Axiom>
~The one doubt I have is should we capture this information as a string or~ I assigned them URIs (like it is done with has_rank). Open to comments. If this is not acceptable, it's ok. Please let me know.
Does divison have to be a PURL? it seems adding PURLS like http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_Primates will create a lot of weird identifiers..
I'm actually ok with strings. I agree PURL would look weird. I wasn't sure. I'll roll it back for now.
Rolled back, now Homo Sapiens looks like this:
<!-- http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_9606 -->
<owl:Class rdf:about="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_9606">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_9605"/>
<ncbitaxon:has_division>Primates</ncbitaxon:has_division>
<ncbitaxon:has_rank rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_species"/>
<oboInOwl:hasDbXref>GC_ID:1</oboInOwl:hasDbXref>
<oboInOwl:hasExactSynonym>human</oboInOwl:hasExactSynonym>
<oboInOwl:hasOBONamespace>ncbi_taxonomy</oboInOwl:hasOBONamespace>
<rdfs:label>Homo sapiens</rdfs:label>
</owl:Class>
<owl:Axiom>
<owl:annotatedSource rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_9606"/>
<owl:annotatedProperty rdf:resource="http://www.geneontology.org/formats/oboInOwl#hasExactSynonym"/>
<owl:annotatedTarget>human</owl:annotatedTarget>
<oboInOwl:hasSynonymType rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/ncbitaxon#genbank_common_name"/>
</owl:Axiom>
```
@hrshdhgd I think I am missing some context from other peoples work..
@cthoyt @jamesamcl @anitacaron can someone remind what the deal is with these PURLs?
<ncbitaxon:has_rank rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/NCBITaxon_species"/>
Maybe we agreed this is indeed the right thing to do (sorry @hrshdhgd).
Those non-numeric IDs are prehistoric, and we should not mint new ones going forward.
Those non-numeric IDs are prehistoric, and we should not mint new ones going forward.
I agree, that's why I was confused to see the purls for has_rank values. But I see in #120 that TAXRANKS:XXX is proposed to be implemented which I like as an idea. Having said that, would it make sense to tie has_division to pre-existing standards or create a new one?
Is this Primates the same as this one? If so, we can use the same url then.