Mathias Brochhausen

Was discussed in OBI meeting August 23. General agreement that the terms looked good.

Very cool! Thanks for sharing. Best, Mathias On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 8:28 AM James A. Overton ***@***.***> wrote: > OWL has a handful of "profiles" > that specify...

I would not necessarily say that there is an inconsistency, but this is something that OBI and OBIB need to sort out. In my understanding what the OBI definition says...

I think that is a good solution, except that I would also want to stress that the new specimen ID class needs to be a subclass to "identifier". Best, Mathias...

In line with Jie I propose to import 'specimen id' from OBIB, rename it specimen identifier. Retain OBI's 'specimen identifier' as a subclass and rename that, too (Jie: If I...

Yes, in my mind the has part statement would be retained. Assuming that the numbers on the barcode can be used to identify the specimen, they are CRID symbols.

may I suggested having the restriction to biomedical being reflected in the label?

Hi, that already exists: http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/APOLLO_SV?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/APOLLO_SV_00000033 If we need this to be declared a subclass of "assay" we might consider moving it. On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:07 AM John...

I see Based on that argumentation what you propose as 'counting assay' should be a subclass of counting, because the methodology of counting is precisely the same whether I count...

I am open to the discussion whether the Apollo-SV term should be a subclass to assay. but having 2 processes which are precisely the same in two different branches based...