drains/supplies - should we represent at both the organ level and the organ part level? Should we use inference to do this?

[dosumis]

@emquardokus wrote:

are we looking for a relationship to the organ per se or to the hilum itself, which is a part of the organ or are you lumping it altogether? The relationship I see described in the literature in anatomical terms is all the vessels entering or exiting via hilum. On the other hand the contents (blood or lymph) of said vessels can be draining or supplying said organ. Maybe it's a biology thing as I see this as 2 separate relationships... physical vessel to organ vs functional thing what it's doing.

On the general issue:

• I'd like to document what the CCF use cases are for representing connection/supply/drains relationships in CCF.owl and wether this would require relationships both at the organ level and at the organ part level.
• Rather than adding two relationships to Uberon for drains/supplies covering organ and organ part, I'd prefer to use reasoning. A simple property chain can be used to say that if X drains/supplies Y and Y part_of Z then X drain/supplies Z. That might be too strong though as part_of is transitive (every vessel supplies the whole body...). We could use GCIs to restrict this to the organ level instead. (drains some (part_of some kidney) subClassOf drains some kidney).

[dosumis]

@cmungall - add property chains:

drains o part_of -> drains
supplies o part_of -> supplies

Yes or no?

[github-actions]

This issue has not seen any activity in the past 6 months; it will be closed automatically in one year from now if no action is taken.

[paolaroncaglia]

Commenting to prevent staleness: this is a HuBMAP/ASCT+B ticket (linked to ASCT+B board in fact) and should not be closed.

[cmungall]

Tricky. Many would find draining a whole organism odd. If we tightened such that draining X meant all parts of x I suspect many axioms would be wrong We could also name the broader relations. Eg drains part of

…

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 2:40 AM David Osumi-Sutherland < ***@***.***> wrote: @cmungall <https://github.com/cmungall> - add property chains: drains o part_of -> drains supplies o part_of -> supplies Yes or no? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2096 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOO35O3QJRYMJYTLQ5LUGVHXTANCNFSM5F4WFQVQ> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.

[github-actions]

This issue has not seen any activity in the past 6 months; it will be closed automatically one year from now if no action is taken.

[ghost]

@dosumis / @matentzn, will you kindly clarify what the action items are for this ticket?

[matentzn]

@bvarner-ebi sorry for assigning you, you will most likely be unassigned - we need someone on the ticket (as it is listed in the priorities) but right now the action item is for

• @dosumis to summarise the action items related for this ticket

[matentzn]

See also #2453 where we are about to create more specific relation ships. @anitacaron can you try to understand how these issues relate?

[github-actions]

This issue has not seen any activity in the past 6 months; it will be closed automatically one year from now if no action is taken.