Guidance on RO definitions

[wdduncan]

There are a number of different styles of definitions in RO.
For example:

• A relation between X and Y in which ... (e.g. capable of)
• x R y if and only if ... (e.g. determined by)
• x R y means ... (e.g. has component participant)

Do we want to standardize how definitions in RO are written?

cc @matentzn @balhoff @dosumis @cmungall

[matentzn]

Yes guidance would be very appreciated

[nlharris]

Maybe this should go on the agenda for a future RO meeting.

[pgaudet]

We are also working on documentation for how we use relations in GO annotations - I would be happy to align our documentation with RO's.

[wdduncan]

I've added this to the meeting agenda. Not sure if we get time to discuss it, though.
Do others consider this to be addressed by https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/846?
If so, we should close.

[addiehl]

Per Chris: Use an Aristotelian definition if we are clearly refining a relation, otherwise use the "A relation between X and Y in which " form of definition.

And inverses have "Inverse of ..." for definitions. (constructed automatically via SPARQL)

[addiehl]

This issue can be closed when a PR on the editor documentation is made.