Submission of relations(related to ADO and EPIO)

[BideZ]

Here are 15 object properties related to ADO and EPIO that we would like to submit to RO.

[BideZ]

@matentzn Thanks for the feedback. I have committed the changes about the aforementioned issues. I added hasX for all isXFor relations except 'is model for' because 'has model' is already there in the relation Ontology. Besides, I defined all the hasX relations in a fashion consistent with 'has model' in RO (Inverse of is-X-For ). I am looking forward to your reply! Thank you.

[matentzn]

@BideZ Technically this looks good to me. Now the hard part - convincing the RO people which relations are really needed. Unfortunately, this is no longer my area, but I am happy for your first attempt to interact with RO. Note that getting stuff into these "upper level" ontologies can be quite a lengthy process.. I hope someone from the RO team will pick this up and help you with some concrete steps to move this forward.

[github-actions[bot]]

This PR has not seen any activity in 90 days and has been marked as stale. If it is no longer needed, please close the PR. Otherwise, please update the PR with a status update.

[cmungall]

apologies I am just seeing this for the first time now

While it's good to batch requests I think a lot of these need to be discussed and things might get lost in a single over-arching issue. Overall I would say:

• there appears to be a lot of duplication with existing relations, these could be accomodated with synonym requests (e.g. adding sign or symptom onto existing phenotype relations)
• there are no domain/range constraints. While this is a challenge in general due to lack of agreement on TLOs there are some cases where obvious D/R axioms could be made

[github-actions[bot]]

This PR has not seen any activity in 90 days and has been marked as stale. If it is no longer needed, please close the PR. Otherwise, please update the PR with a status update.