Conversation
fixes #123 Let the ware begin.
|
Yes ... I imagine there will be a lot of back forth about this. @matentzn Are you proposing that by making
|
|
I'm not against the object property approach but I think the inverses should be used here (in a weakened form in some cases): |
|
This class is intended to group the about 100,000 phenotype classes under UPHENO: https://ols.monarchinitiative.org/ontologies/upheno2/terms?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.obolibrary.org%2Fobo%2FUPHENO_0001001&viewMode=PreferredRoots&siblings=false |
|
|
||
| <owl:Class rdf:about="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/COB_0001001"> | ||
| <obo:IAO_0000115>The set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.</obo:IAO_0000115> | ||
| <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">phenotype</rdfs:label> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
an alternative would be to avoid the shared "phenotype" term, and use phenotypic effect instead, as @dosumis has been suggesting.
|
@matentzn In UPHENO, Shouldn't it be the same in COB? |
|
Yes, this is really controversial, and should probably not be in Upheno.. |
|
There hasn't been any discussion on this in quite a while.
Would it be better to define a term for "environment-genotype interaction" (if one doesn't exist) and the define a phenotypes as "output of" that process? This would still encompass a large number of different types of things, but perhaps make the term "phenotype" more palatable? |

fixes #123
Let the war begin.