[obs] Joining DwC, OBOE, PO and PATO

[Cam Webb]

Dear Chris,

> 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
>         ] ;
>     ] ;

Thanks for this suggestion (although bearer_of doesn't seem to be a term 
in bfo 1.1, but only in ro_proposed?).  A possible problem with this 
solution may be that such an oboe:Observation has no oboe:Measurement 
(though an oboe:Measurement is not specified in the oboe ontology as being 
required for a oboe:Observation...).  Perhaps another solution is to 
simply make the observed quality an instance of the PATO term:

[]   a oboe:Observation ;
     oboe:ofEntity [
         a oboe:Entity ;
         a po:PO_0009001 ;
         ] ;
     oboe:hasMeasurement [
         a pato:PATO_0000320 .  # <----------
         ] .

Although keeping all phenotype observations within the OBO model is 
attractive (i.e., not using OBOE after all).  If DwC were to accept an 
Observation class, then this could be directly of a bfo:Entity which was a 
bearer_of a Quality, making life much simpler.

[] a dwcnew:Observation ;
     dwcnew:ofEntity [
         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).

True, I was just adding it for extra information (for me).

Thanks again,

Cam