[obs] Joining DwC, OBOE, PO and PATO

Chris Mungall CJMungall at lbl.gov
Tue Oct 26 08:56:01 PDT 2010


Hi Cam

I too haven't been part of previous discussions.

The example below will lead to an OWL-Full ontology, as you are  
declaring PATO_0000320 to be an individual, when it's already declared  
as a class.

You would be more interoperable with other OBO-compliant resources if  
you model it this way, using the bfo bearer_of property to connect a  
fruit individual with a color individual:

[]   a oboe:Observation ;
     oboe:ofEntity [
         a oboe:Entity ;
         a po:PO_0009001 ;
	bfo:bearer_of [
		a pato:PATO_0000320
	] ;
         ] ;

I don't know much about the oboe ontology, an dhow these can  
interoperate with OBO ontologies. Is oboe:Entity intended to be the  
maximally general class? If so then it may be redundant to declare  
this individual as being both type oboe:Entity and of type fruit  
(since presumably fruits are entities).

Also, I don't know anything about the observation class, but to be  
consistent with the ontology of biomedical investigations, you may  
want to invert the above, such that the observation is a measurement  
of the color instance

Cheers
Chris

On Oct 26, 2010, at 2:31 AM, Cam Webb wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> I'd like to request some suggestions on semantic modeling of  
> biological observations.  I haven't be part of the previous  
> discussions many of you have had in other forums, and face to face,  
> so there may be a ready-made solution out there for what I am hoping  
> to do, and which I would be very grateful to be pointed towards.  If  
> not, I hope this question falls within the domain of your interests.
>
> I'm interested in modeling morphological observations of plants in  
> the field, as part of an expanding biodiversity inventory and  
> informatics project in Indonesia.  Please see: http://phylodiversity.net/xmalesia/ 
>  for a demo site.  We'll be collecting specimens, images, DNA, and  
> making field observations (basic herbarium label data: tree  
> diameter, flower color, etc).  We'd then like to present these  
> online as both a nice GUI-driven website and via a Linked Data model  
> with a SPARQL endpoint.  I haven't found a pre-existing RDF  
> template, although Peter de Vries' work (e.g., http://lod.geospecies.org/ses/73F2V?format=html) 
>  and Steve Baskauf's work (e.g., http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/rdf/examples/lsu000/0428.rdf) 
>  come close.  There is an active discussion on the tdwg-content  
> mailing list right now about using Darwin Core in a semantic web  
> context, including issues such as adding an Individual class and the  
> best way to treat specimens and images.  However, there is little  
> discussion of observations on tdwg-content, so I thought I'd bring  
> it up here (apologies to any of you who have see overlapping posts  
> by me on tdwg-content).
>
> So, I'm wondering if OBOE terms can be used to link up from DwC  
> concepts to OBO ontology terms with PATO qualities.  Perhaps the  
> best way to ask the questions is in the context of a specific  
> example.  Here is an attempt to model an observation of the fruit  
> color of a particular individual (in Turtle):
>
>
> @prefix oboe: <http://ecoinformatics.org/oboe/oboe.1.0/oboe- 
> core.owl#> .
> @prefix dwc: <http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/> .
> @prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
> @prefix sernec: <http://bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/rdf/terms#> .
> @prefix geo: <http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#> .
> @prefix ro: <http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/ro.owl#> .
> @prefix pato: <http://purl.org/obo/owl/PATO#> .
> @prefix po: <http://purl.org/obo/owl/PO#> .
> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
>
> <http://phylodiversity.net/xmalesia/indiv/9>
>     a sernec:Individual ;
>     sernec:derivativeOccurrence _:blank1 .
>
> _:blank1
>     a dwc:Occurrence ;
>     dcterms:created "2008-01-01" ;
>     dcterms:spatial [
>         geo:lon "109.95371" ;
>         geo:lat "-1.25530" ;
>         ] ;
>     dcterms:creator "Cam Webb" ;
>     dwc:basisOfRecord "HumanObservation" .
>
> # The details of the observation:
> []   a oboe:Observation ;
>     oboe:ofEntity [
>         a oboe:Entity ;
>         ro:part_of _:blank1 ;
>         a po:PO_0009001 ;
>         ] ;
>     oboe:hasMeasurement pato:PATO_0000320 .
>
> po:PO_0009001 rdfs:label "fruit" .
> pato:PATO_0000320
>    rdfs:label "green" ;
>    a oboe:Measurement .
>
> ( The network diagram is at: http://phylodiversity.net/cwebb/img/obs-eg.jpg 
>  )
>
>
> The model includes an Individual, its Occurrence at a particular  
> place in space and time, and an Observation of a fruit that is  
> part_of the Occurrence.
>
>
> My questions/issues are:
>
> 1. * Space-time information* Is this the best way to link the  
> Observation to the Individual, i.e., via the Occurrence, or is it  
> better to link the Observation directly to the Individual.  In the  
> former case, the time-space instance is specified in the Occurrence  
> (as above), in the latter, the time-space instance would have to be  
> added via an extra oboe:hasContext link from the Observation to  
> another Observation of a Temporal Point entity.  The latter way of  
> linking the Individual is less satisfying in the context of Darwin  
> Core, which already uses the Occurrence for "HumanObservations".
>
> 2. *part_of* If we want to record an observation of part of an  
> organism, we could use the ro:part_of property to link the  
> Observation of that part to the Individual which has that part.  Two  
> issues here, i) is it meristically valid to say that the Occurrence  
> (the space-time instance of the continuant Individual) can have a  
> part?  As I read the definition of ro:part_of:
>
>  ``For continuants: C part_of C' if and only if: given any c that
>    instantiates C at a time t, there is some c' such that c'  
> instantiates
>    C' at time t, and c *part_of* c' at t.''
>
> I think a fruit_txyz0 is indeed part of plant_txyz0, but I am not  
> well-verse in mereology.  ii) Is there a way in the OBO/EQ  
> ontologies to say `the observed Entity is the general class of  
> fruits' rather than a specific instance of a fruit, which is what I  
> imagine
>
>  [] a po:Fruit ;
>     ro:part_of :Individual123 .
>
> means.  This is important, because our final observation of the  
> nature of parts of an Individual is usually actually an average over  
> many instances of those parts.
>
> 3. *Measurement* In the usage above, I have combined  
> oboe:ofCharacteristic and oboe:hasValue into a single PATO quality  
> term `green color'.  Is this acceptable usage, within the intentions  
> of OBOE?  I.e. is it fair to assert that a pato:Quality is a  
> oboe;Measurement? This solution is satisfying because the popular  
> Entity-Quality model can then be mapped directly into OBOE, as  
> above.  Matt Jones mentioned that there was an effort underway by  
> participants of SONet, DataONE, and the Data Conservancy, and  
> possibly the Plant Trait observations ontology group to ``try to  
> harmonize many of the existing observations models, including OBOE, O 
> +M, and EQ, as well as more traditional models like Darwin Core.''  
> I'm wondering if there are any documents available describing this  
> ontology interoperability development process?
>
> An alternative to using the OBOE ontology at all is to use a  
> phenotype-focussed ontology (i.e., an OBO one emerging from the  
> phenoscape group), where a pato:quality ro:inheres_in a po:Fruit.   
> However, I'm not sure there are terms yet published that can be used  
> in RDF.  Any updates on this would be vaulable.
>
> 4. *General*  I would also appreciate any guidance on whether these  
> questions are appropriate for a public forum, or whether modeling a  
> particular set of data is a `private' enterprise and too full of  
> context dependent decisions.  The options for someone in my position  
> are to design a model that represents the data as I see it, coining  
> various new terms where needed, or to find/wait for a semantic  
> template, with standardized terms, and fit my data into it.  For  
> data re-use (especially LOD applications) the latter is preferable,  
> but I don't think we are at the stage yet of having an agreed upon  
> template.  No right or wrong here, but your opinions would be valued.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Cam
>
>
> +-------------------------------------------------+
> |  CAMPBELL O. WEBB                               |
> |     Senior Research Scientist                   |
> |  Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University         |
> |  [  Harvard University Herbaria,                |
> |     22 Divinity Ave, Cambridge MA, 02138, USA ] |
> +-------------------------------------------------+
> |  Mail: Kotak Pos 2, Sukadana, Kab. Kayong Utara |
> |     Kalimantan Barat 78852, Indonesia           |
> |  Mobile/SMS: +62-813-9917-7663          (GMT+7) |
> |  Skype: ctenolophon       Twitter: @cmwbb       |
> |  Web/PGP: http://phylodiversity.net/cwebb/      |
> +-------------------------------------------------+
>



More information about the obs mailing list