Identifying grouping terms in RO

[deepakunni3]

In RO there are terms meant for grouping other terms based on certain criteria, virtually delineating a branch.

For example, 'RO:0002244 related via exposure to' is a grouping term with a 'curator note'

"Do not use this relation directly. It is intended as a grouping for
a diverse set of relations, all involving exposure events or processes."

But not all terms have this note.

Is there a way such terms can be annotated in the ontology for easier parsing?

@cmungall

[matentzn]

Follow up from the RO meeting today:

@LEHunter said grouping relations are a great way to make RO more easy to use.

@cmungall suggests to annotate grouping relations with a subset or similar - @LEHunter says do "ditch the do not annotate warning" we want to use these in NLP applications.

QUestion: by what criteria can we add grouping relations:

• suggestion to use Domain/Range based grouping

• @dosumis says: group by neuron

• @cmungall: from a to b, where A can be unspecified or a class from COB example:

• process to continuant relation

  • has participant

Discussion: manifesting grouping approach vs subset based tagging approach.

[matentzn]

@cmungall suggests to add a yaml pattern for the grouping relations!

[nlharris]

Is more discussion required?

[matentzn]

a lot more.

[nlharris]

Should we add this to the next RO call agenda?

[wdduncan]

@nlharris Sure. We can add it.

[deepakunni3]

Explore further on whether we want to turn the grouping OPs to APs? And have some rules on what constitutes grouping classes.