-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 205
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
New Ontology Request - DISDRIV - Disease Drivers #1508
Comments
Hey @lschriml I think 2, 3 tiny things to fix: We will start with the review right after the "red" is gone from the dashboard. Thank you! |
Thank you Nico !! @matentzn Love this new feature !! [open]
[versioning] --> I don't have an IRI, as there is no purl for this ontology. Not sure how to solve this error without a 'purl' ?? Thanks for your help Nico !! Cheers, |
About your issue with license: I think in your ontology, you simply need to add a slash to the end of the license to be
rather than
For your other issue you should consider creating a release - it may indeed not make too much sense to create a version IRI for the edit file. We recommend creating two releases profiles: full, and base. The linked docs show how the version IRI is added. Let me know if you need help with ROBOT, or you could ask Becky. Once you have a (provisional) release file (does not have to be official), let me know, and I will re-run the dashboard again :) |
Thank you Nico !! The / has been added. http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/disdriv/releases/2021-05-18/disdriv.owl Thank you for all of your help and coordinating the dashboard runs. Much appreciated, |
Hi Lynn: This will obviously be for the broader call, but I am not sure that this falls under 'application ontology'? We really need to define that better, but for me that implies that there is a specific application (like a database, or a tool) that makes it necessary to pull things together from different ontologies. Here, it seems that you are covering a domain that re-uses other ontologies, but I don't see the application (and I may have just missed it). Anyway, I think this domain is getting very crowded, and we should be more careful than normal to not add to the confusion. Not sure how helpful this is, and I am stuck with grant writing until June, so apologies in advance for raising and not following through. |
Hello Bjoern,
Thanks for the thoughts.
This ontology is for a specific application.
To enable annotation of exposure stressors that result in disease. We will utilize these stressors in the disease ontology. There is interest in exposure stressors in both ExO and ECTO ontologies, but not the band width to integrate them. Though no one else is defining the stressors themselves as a group of terms. Specifically, in how they are drivers and triggers of disease.
Fortunately, the majority of terms are defined in their pertinent domain ontologies. Thus this application ontology sources the terms from these ontologies for a new purpose.
Environmental, chemical, physical, psychosocial agents and environmental perturbations will aid in further refining the contribution of environmental (etc) contributions to disease mechanisms
Alternatively, I could pull in imports from each of the source ontologies for the pertinent terms individual. However, this would be a more hodgepodge approach, and would not be sharable. As an application ontology, it is a defined space of knowledge and sharable.
Cheers,
Lynn
…Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2021, at 7:21 PM, bpeters42 ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Lynn: This will obviously be for the broader call, but I am not sure that this falls under 'application ontology'? We really need to define that better, but for me that implies that there is a specific application (like a database, or a tool) that makes it necessary to pull things together from different ontologies. Here, it seems that you are covering a domain that re-uses other ontologies, but I don't see the application (and I may have just missed it). Anyway, I think this domain is getting very crowded, and we should be more careful than normal to not add to the confusion. Not sure how helpful this is, and I am stuck with grant writing until June, so apologies in advance for raising and not following through.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
Hi, |
Thank you Lauren.
You have been super helpful regarding these terms (X), adding them to ECTO’s ‘exposure to X’.
Cheers,
Lynn
…Sent from my iPhone
On May 19, 2021, at 5:36 PM, Lauren ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi,
I just wanted to weigh in on this ticket. I have been working on ECTO in order to define environmental and nutrition causes of disease in Mondo for my thesis work. I have also put together an ICBO paper about our work to date on this topic. AFAIK, we have been responsive to all requests for encoding environmental stressors within ECTO. If we are missing anything, it is most helpful to document requests/needs on our tracker. Thanks!
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
Hi all, I saw a few ENVO classes in here and took a look at the ontology. I'm not sure about a few things:
To me, this is pretty major stuff which could hurt a bunch of things up- and downstream |
Thanks @pbuttigieg - it looks like CHEBI classes are also being rewired in a similar way? I wonder if this is intentional? |
The definitions were initially written to be part of ExO.
I appreciate @pbuttigieg and @mungall comments.
Agree, definitions should be sourced from primary ontology. I will update DISDRIV definitions.
Cheers,
Lynn
…Sent from my iPhone
On May 25, 2021, at 12:51 PM, Chris Mungall ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks @pbuttigieg - it looks like CHEBI classes are also being rewired in a similar way? I wonder if this is intentional?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
Thanks @lschriml - I think the same applies to the subclass hierarchies - other axioms should be used to link, e.g., earthquakes to ecological perturbations, without changing the import hierarchies (and thus the machine-readable semantics) |
Agreed !!
…On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 3:24 PM Pier Luigi Buttigieg < ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks @lschriml <https://github.com/lschriml> - I think the same applies
to the subclass hierarchies - other axioms should be used to link, e.g.,
earthquakes to ecological perturbations, without changing the import
hierarchies (and thus the machine-readable semantics)
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1508 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABBB4DN3XFNLDR3GFYW32NLTPP2OZANCNFSM45A7M5YQ>
.
--
Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Institute for Genome Sciences
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061
Baltimore, MD 21201
P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756
***@***.***
|
Axioms and definitions updated. |
Thank you Pier !!
I have made the updates.
I think you may have been looking at an older file.
The updated file is at:
https://github.com/DiseaseOntology/DiseaseDriversOntology/blob/main/src/ontology/disease_drivers.owl
The terms are linked to ExO terms (e.g. biological agent) with 'has_role'
only.
Would this be acceptable ?
Algal bloom: I was listing it as a chemical agent, due to the toxin
produced by the algal bloom.
Perhaps this term should be 'harmful algal bloom' or 'harmful algal bloom
toxin' and be moved to 'toxin' category
What do you think ?
Cheers,
Lyn
…On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:16 PM Pier Luigi Buttigieg < ***@***.***> wrote:
Sorry, @lschriml <https://github.com/lschriml> - I still see multiple
ENVO classes with modified definitions and placed in alternative
hierarchies. This doesn't really work with the OBO Principles or good
practice.
Examples here
<https://github.com/DiseaseOntology/DiseaseDriversOntology/blob/f292b65c604f17961363e787bb6b4e7716f99cbd/src/ontology/releases/disease_drivers.owl#L873-L886>,
here
<https://github.com/DiseaseOntology/DiseaseDriversOntology/blob/f292b65c604f17961363e787bb6b4e7716f99cbd/src/ontology/releases/disease_drivers.owl#L990-L1004>
(how can an algal bloom be a chemical agent?), and here
<https://github.com/DiseaseOntology/DiseaseDriversOntology/blob/f292b65c604f17961363e787bb6b4e7716f99cbd/src/ontology/releases/disease_drivers.owl#L1109-L1125>
(that ExO class should be in ENVO).
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1508 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABBB4DKM5WA5UCTERBPP5JLTRTWHTANCNFSM45A7M5YQ>
.
--
Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Institute for Genome Sciences
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061
Baltimore, MD 21201
P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756
***@***.***
|
@pier Luigi Buttigieg ***@***.***> -- thank you !!
Fixed.
Cheers,
Lynn
…On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 6:20 AM Pier Luigi Buttigieg < ***@***.***> wrote:
@lschriml <https://github.com/lschriml>
Using the link above, I'm still seeing modifications and re-arrangements
in the hierarchies, e.g. here
<https://github.com/DiseaseOntology/DiseaseDriversOntology/blob/main/src/ontology/disease_drivers.owl#L1146-L1159>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1508 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABBB4DISMNU4BMW2EQF57EDTSXJVPANCNFSM45A7M5YQ>
.
--
Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Institute for Genome Sciences
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061
Baltimore, MD 21201
P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756
***@***.***
|
Thanks @lschriml looks like the original definitions are now in play, but I don't know how to evaluate the rewiring bit - the terms seem to still be reshuffled, which messes with the semantics from the ENVO side. Connects back to the need to have more clear policies and types of OBO artifact There is still a content-level issue with statements like this: An |
This still injects via inference, e.g copper (CHEBI) is a subclass of deficiency: It also injects that some CHEBI structures are subclasses of CHEBI roles: This will cause unsatisfiable classes when this is combined with other ontologies it looks like equivalence axioms are being injected into CHEBI roles: has-role axioms are injected onto ENVO processes: |
Thank you Pier !!
How should it be structured ?
Should I be pulling in the upper level hierarchy for each term ?
Cheers,
Lynn
…Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 29, 2021, at 12:46 PM, Pier Luigi Buttigieg ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks @lschriml looks like the original definitions are now in play, but I don't know how to evaluate the rewiring bit - the terms seem to still be reshuffled, which messes with the semantics from the ENVO side.
Connects back to the need to have more clear policies and types of OBO artifact
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
I'm not sure - it depends on OBO policy in general: if this is more a flat list of terms, then the evaluation criteria would be different from an ontology proper. But we don't have categories of semantic artifact with different criteria, so I don't really know what to do. |
I see your points.
What is the best solution forward ?
Is it not allowed to infer roles that are beyond the scope of the initial ontology ?
… On Jun 29, 2021, at 12:56 PM, Chris Mungall ***@***.***> wrote:
This still injects via inference, e.g copper (CHEBI) is a subclass of deficiency:
It also injects that some CHEBI structures are subclasses of CHEBI roles:
This will cause unsatisfiable classes when this is combined with other ontologies
it looks like equivalence axioms are being injected into CHEBI roles:
has-role axioms are injected onto ENVO processes:
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
Folks, you have the wrong "Pier" in this thread.
Cheers
Pier Kuipers
…On Tue 29 Jun 2021, 18:08 lschriml, ***@***.***> wrote:
I see your points.
What is the best solution forward ?
Is it not allowed to infer roles that are beyond the scope of the initial
ontology ?
> On Jun 29, 2021, at 12:56 PM, Chris Mungall ***@***.***> wrote:
>
>
> This still injects via inference, e.g copper (CHEBI) is a subclass of
deficiency:
>
>
>
> It also injects that some CHEBI structures are subclasses of CHEBI roles:
>
>
>
> This will cause unsatisfiable classes when this is combined with other
ontologies
>
> it looks like equivalence axioms are being injected into CHEBI roles:
>
>
>
> has-role axioms are injected onto ENVO processes:
>
>
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1508 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAGGWRSYOJ6X2YY7VV53E3TVH4XXANCNFSM45A7M5YQ>
.
|
has role: has role some xenobiotic cobalamin has role some B vitamin |
yes, these axioms come from CHEBI see: CHEBI has two hierarchies - structures and roles. The has-role relation generally connects material entities to roles - I haven't seen second order roles (roles with roles) or processes with roles before. These aren't allowed by BFO, but RO is less restrictive
I would take one of three paths. just describing briefly now as am on a call
Either way, I would make a release version that is pre-inferred. Right now if you open the owl file without reasoning it will look like a flat list. Some ontology browsers will not pre-reason, and this will look like a flat list to users |
Will iterate on some structural changes for deficiency structure etc. |
What is the status of this? Are we waiting for submitter action, or are they waiting for feedback from OBO Foundry? |
We are waiting for me (the submitter) to complete the requested revisions.
Please mark this request as in progress.
Cheers,
Lynn
…On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 3:08 PM Nomi Harris ***@***.***> wrote:
What is the status of this? Are we waiting for submitter action, or are
they waiting for feedback from OBO Foundry?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1508 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABBB4DPMXXYCCNY6K3T4HHDT572TVANCNFSM45A7M5YQ>
.
--
Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Institute for Genome Sciences
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061
Baltimore, MD 21201
P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756
***@***.***
|
A revised file is ready for review: |
Thanks! Just some quick comments The ontology is much smaller - is this intentional? is it intended as an exemplar of a future approach or were things omitted unintentionally Here is a visualization: The injection issue is vastly reduced: there are no longer any ENVO classes. There is still some injection happening: CHEBI:alcohol is-a FOODON:beverage is-a disease-driver I am not sure this is consistent with either the CHEBI meaning (a small molecule is not a beverage) or the foodon one (every beverage is a disease driver) |
Thank you Chris !!
This is an exemplar, to see if this structure is what the committee wanted.
Regarding the injection:
alcohol is_a (child of) alcoholic beverage in FoodOn and In ECTO,
moving up the tree for alcoholic beverage are several FoodOn
parents (up to FoodOn's 'food material'), with an EnvO parent class
'environmental material' at the top.
In EnvO 'food material' is not a child of 'environmental material'
I've attached a screen shot.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/ecto/terms?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.obolibrary.org%2Fobo%2FCHEBI_30879
In the Experimental Condition Ontology (XCO), alcohol is a child of
'chemical with specified structure' XCO:0000323
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/xco/terms?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.obolibrary.org%2Fobo%2FXCO_0000323
Is there a different or more appropriate way to include terms, such as
alcohol, where the parent term is not a ChEBI term ?
I see that sometimes, when a term is reused from another ontology, the
entire hierarchy up to a common parent term ?
In other ontologies, the term is a child of a new parent term.
Is the FoodOn - EnvO example also a case of 'injection' ??
Is there some guidance about injecting or re-using of classes from one
ontology while asserting different parent classes in another ontology ?
Cheers,
Lynn
…On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:58 PM Chris Mungall ***@***.***> wrote:
Thanks!
Just some quick comments
The ontology is much smaller - is this intentional? is it intended as an
exemplar of a future approach or were things omitted unintentionally
Here is a visualization:
[image: image]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/50745/135314313-9d0a48ae-f82c-44b2-a0ab-707bc169601b.png>
The injection issue is vastly reduced: there are no longer any ENVO
classes.
There is still some injection happening:
[image: image]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/50745/135314664-60fb6373-b82e-4a86-ad0d-d85bbfdf16f0.png>
CHEBI:alcohol is-a FOODON:beverage is-a disease-driver
I am not sure this is consistent with either the CHEBI meaning (a small
molecule is not a beverage) or the foodon one (every beverage is a disease
driver)
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1508 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABBB4DJZH3TLDT3V35WESODUENATFANCNFSM45A7M5YQ>
.
--
Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Institute for Genome Sciences
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061
Baltimore, MD 21201
P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756
***@***.***
|
I opened an issue with FOODON: FoodOntology/foodon#161 |
And noting here the injection of terms Issue noted on the above FoodOn ticket So my question is: Second: Can DISDRIV be given a PURL as this issue is discussed ? |
I see. This helps me a bit, but I am struggling a bit to see what the intended path forward is, because the new ontology is so small. Will future versions include more chebi terms beyond 'alcohol' and how will they be placed? Will it include ENVO, as previous versions did?
I suggest this is discussed at the next OBO call - does that seem OK? My questions here don't constitute a vote for or against, just trying to understand more. Hopefully others in OBO will comment here I believe on the last call when this was discussed, some thought this seemed similar to a standard "robot extract" that many ontologies do (my option "3" further above). (sorry, don't have notes handy, going by recollection). If so then you could have a purl under the DO namespace which you control. I know Becky is off but others members of the TWG should be able to help here. |
Thank you Chris.
There are other terms to add. There will be around 100 terms in DISDRIV.
The intent is to include the full list of disease drivers.
Before I do that,
I need input from the committee first on how to proceed.
Specifically,
Can I include terms, as mentioned above, as 'injections'??
See XCO and FoodOn examples in previous posts.
Can other ChEBI terms be 'siblings' of 'alcohol' ?
If yes, then I will proceed to add other disease drivers.
If not, then I ask how am I able to reuse terms from other ontologies in
this ontology ?
As the OBO Foundry encourages term reuse.
Or is it anticipated that I will need to create new terms, rather than
reuse terms ??
Cheers,
Lynn
…On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 11:58 AM Chris Mungall ***@***.***> wrote:
This is an exemplar, to see if this structure is what the committee wanted.
I see. This helps me a bit, but I am struggling a bit to see what the
intended path forward is, because the new ontology is so small. Will future
versions include more chebi terms beyond 'alcohol' and how will they be
placed? Will it include ENVO, as previous versions did?
Can DISDRIV be given a PURL as this issue is discussed ?
I suggest this is discussed at the next OBO call - does that seem OK?
My questions here don't constitute a vote for or against, just trying to
understand more. Hopefully others in OBO will comment here
I believe on the last call when this was discussed, some thought this
seemed similar to a standard "robot extract" that many ontologies do (my
option "3" further above). (sorry, don't have notes handy, going by
recollection). If so then you could have a purl under the DO namespace
which you control. I know Becky is off but others members of the TWG should
be able to help here.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1508 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABBB4DLY4H4TFIJU6LUOQOLUEXLCXANCNFSM45A7M5YQ>
.
--
Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Institute for Genome Sciences
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061
Baltimore, MD 21201
P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756
***@***.***
|
Discussed in the operations call on 2021-10-19: it would be preferred if the hierarchy were modeled using existential restrictions, rather than the is_a relation. Could you define your classes in this way? (I made up the 'driven by' object property; the specific one to use is up for discussion)
This design pattern is similar to those being used in ECTO—maybe there is room for collaboration there also. |
I was not part of the discussion, but do I understand it correctly that you want to annotate and analyse disease drivers in DO? SO basically, you want to say: DO:001 has_driver CHEBI:001? In that case, I would suggest the following:
Sorry for barging in. Hope this is not causing additional confusion.. |
Thank you all for the constructive feedback for DISDRIV. Feedback: --> Yes, agreed, following the ECTO design pattern is a good approach. I have revised disdriv.owl, pushed to our GitHub, I think this aligns with @balhoff suggestions. I used the relation 'causes condition' until a new relation can be created. To complete these revisions, I am requesting a new relation,(as suggested by @matentzn ) to use instead of 'causes condition'. --> I am proposing a new relation, (following how 'has allergic trigger' has been defined in RO.)
I have submitted a RO ticket: for reference: Feedback: A disease driver is analogous to the 'agent' in the ExO 'exposure stressor' definition. -- 'disease driver' is utilized to describe epidemiological mechanisms, in DISDRIV: -- a driver differs from a stimulus, as the driver defines a 'cause and effect' mechanism
Driver: the thing that made the disease (contribution to disease state, not reversible) Cheers, |
Thank you @lschriml . Almost there, hope you don't mind the back and forth about this. This is a hugely important topic to align on, and it would give me great happiness if we did. Please email/slack me if you feel this is getting too much in the weeds, but I think this is the right direction, and I would like to solve it in a way that we can all make use of. Just some questions for my own understanding: Ontologically, we care about three things:
Would you say that this here is a reasonable characterisation of what you are proposing (I changed the relation names a bit):
In this case, there is one other option we should consider (to align, I mean, if that is of interest). What we say usually when we want to express the above, is:
This looks almost like what you want here, apart from the fact that it fails to distinguish the However, if we were to strengthen the
Now, you can use your "has disease driver" relation like this:
In Protege, you then simply say something like:
Then you run the reasoner, and you get:
Obviously, you can also just assert
The advantage of doing it this way is:
In any case, even if you disagree with my suggestion, which is fair, this was a very good exercise for my mind to think about aspects, design patterns and so on, and I learned quite a bit thinking it through. In that case (you disagree and want to use your modelling), the only thing I think that remains is find the appropriate relationship between the driver class and the entity that is doing the driving (assuming that "has disease driver" connects the disease with the entity). |
Thank you Nico !!
It is very helpful to go through this thought process. I’m curious, how are stimulus, exposure stimulus and ‘aspect of’ defined ? Looking forward to further discussions !!
Cheers,
Lynn
…Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 1, 2021, at 4:57 AM, Nico Matentzoglu ***@***.***> wrote:
Thank you @lschriml . Almost there, hope you don't mind the back and forth about this. This is a hugely important topic to align on, and it would give me great happiness if we did. Please email/slack me if you feel this is getting too much in the weeds, but I think this is the right direction, and I would like to solve it in a way that we can all make use of. Just some questions for my own understanding:
Ontologically, we care about three things:
The driver (alcohol), i.e. the entity that is causally responsible for the emergence of the disease (thank you for distinguishing driver and stimulus, this was very useful for me to know)
The driver aspect of alcohol (alcohol disease driver), i.e. the aspect of the entity that is causally responsible for the disease.
The disease (fetus alcohol syndrome)
Would you say that this here is a reasonable characterisation of what you are proposing (I changed the relation names a bit):
fetus alcohol syndrome ---[condition caused by]--->alcohol disease driver-->[aspect of]-->alcohol
In this case, there is one other option we should consider (to align, I mean, if that is of interest).
What we say usually when we want to express the above, is:
fetus alcohol syndrome ---[realised in response to]--->exposure to alcohol-->[has exposure stimulus]-->alcohol
This looks almost like what you want here, apart from the fact that it fails to distinguish the trigger aspect from the causal driver aspect.
However, if we were to strengthen the realised in response to relationship just a tiny bit, we could get exactly what you need (if I understand this very difficult thread here correctly I mean):
fetus alcohol syndrome ---[condition caused by]--->exposure to alcohol-->[has exposure stimulus]-->alcohol
Now, you can use your "has disease driver" relation like this:
'has disease driver' subPropertyChainOf: 'condition caused by' o 'has exposure stimulus'
In Protege, you then simply say something like:
fetus alcohol syndrome --[condition caused by]-->exposure to alcohol
Then you run the reasoner, and you get:
fetus alcohol syndrome --[has disease driver]-->alcohol
Obviously, you can also just assert
fetus alcohol syndrome --[has disease driver]-->alcohol
The advantage of doing it this way is:
avoiding another round of shadow classes (alcohol disease driver, chemical disease driver, etc) alongside exposures (alcohol exposure, chemical exposure), which are weaker, but can be strengthened to your use case using object properties. All these different "aspect" classes are becoming a bit of a problem for downstream curators, that get this list: alcohol, alcohol disease driver, alcohol exposure, alcohol consumption, and many more, and do not know what to use anymore.
you could start collaborating on common patterns through ECTO
In any case, even if you disagree with my suggestion, which is fair, this was a very good exercise for my mind to think about aspects, design patterns and so on, and I learned quite a bit thinking it through. In that case (you disagree and want to use your modelling), the only thing I think that remains is find the appropriate relationship between the driver class and the entity that is doing the driving (assuming that "has disease driver" connects the disease with the entity).
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
Great :) Exposure stimulus seems to be roughly defined as:
|
No objections raised. |
For the future, a more detailed summary of our great discussion during the call. The concern we discussed in great detail and all agreed on is that the concept of "disease driver" and "exposure stressor" are extremely close together, and the introduction of a new shadow hierarchy of "alcohol disease driver" alongside "alcohol exposure" will complicate the situation for users that find suitable terms to model their data. The reason we stuck hard to this discussion was that we acknowledge that user confusion is something that we all want to avoid. Basically, @lschriml now has to make a decision:
The OFOC decided that either way is fine to go. If @lschriml decides to go with 2, she will add the yaml and markdown files, and here ontology is considered accepted. |
Thanks for the summary. I would also recommend that if there is intent to
submit an ontology for a concept like disease driver we open an issue on
the COB repo to place this new high level concept somewhere
…On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 9:33 AM Nico Matentzoglu ***@***.***> wrote:
For the future, a more detailed summary of our great discussion during the
call.
The concern we discussed in great detail and all agreed on is that the
concept of "disease driver" and "exposure stressor" are extremely close
together, and the introduction of a new shadow hierarchy of "alcohol
disease driver" alongside "alcohol exposure" will complicate the situation
for users that find suitable terms to model their data. The reason we stuck
hard to this discussion was that we acknowledge that user confusion is
something that we all want to avoid.
Basically, @lschriml <https://github.com/lschriml> now has to make a
decision:
1. She *withdraws the request for DISDRIV* and works with the ECTO
team to get exposure terms that she needs to *model disease drivers*
in the way I suggested in my last post, using something like fetus
alcohol syndrome --[condition caused by]-->exposure to alcohol, from
which she will be able to infer directly fetus alcohol syndrome --[has
driver]-->alcohol. This way, we do not need another set of terms at
all.
2. She decides that modelling using the exposure terms does not
reflect her intention well enough, and goes ahead building a *shadow*
hierarchy of disease driver terms, as outlined by @balhoff
<https://github.com/balhoff> above. In DO, she can then use fetus
alcohol syndrome --[condition caused by]-->alcohol disease driver,
which will, again, enable her to infer the fetus alcohol syndrome
--[has driver]-->alcohol in much the same way as the other proposal.
The OFOC decided that either way is fine to go. If @lschriml
<https://github.com/lschriml> decides to go with 2, she will add the yaml
and markdown files, and here ontology is considered accepted.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1508 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOJUHIAAUJEVMIMTYP3UKFP7DANCNFSM45A7M5YQ>
.
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>.
|
This has been a lot of good conversation regarding the use cases for this ontology. From an ECTO perspective, we are very happy to collaborate and assist how we can to support modeling of both exposures leading to disease onset as well as exposures exacerbating existing disease. ECTO is intended to be applicable in both of those use cases of disease causality and attacks as were stated as the differentiation between a driver and a stimulus. ECTO is working on incorporating some of the exposures requested for use in DO and we will continue to chisel away at that list to support the use case if still needed. |
See also the HPO triggers:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ols/ontologies/hp/terms?iri=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.obolibrary.org%2Fobo%2FHP_0025204&viewMode=PreferredRoots&siblings=false
…On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 2:25 PM Lauren ***@***.***> wrote:
This has been a lot of good conversation regarding the use cases for this
ontology. From an ECTO perspective, we are very happy to collaborate and
assist how we can to support modeling of both exposures leading to disease
onset as well as exposures exacerbating existing disease. ECTO is intended
to be applicable in both of those use cases of disease causality and
attacks as were stated as the differentiation between a driver and a
stimulus. ECTO is working on incorporating some of the exposures requested
for use in DO and we will continue to chisel away at that list to support
the use case if still needed.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1508 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOIUILC7HWAHSAVOBIDUKMB5XANCNFSM45A7M5YQ>
.
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>.
|
Thank you Lauren,
I look forward to working together and thank you for your efforts to
include the exposures in ECTO.
Cheers,
Lynn
…On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:25 PM Lauren ***@***.***> wrote:
This has been a lot of good conversation regarding the use cases for this
ontology. From an ECTO perspective, we are very happy to collaborate and
assist how we can to support modeling of both exposures leading to disease
onset as well as exposures exacerbating existing disease. ECTO is intended
to be applicable in both of those use cases of disease causality and
attacks as were stated as the differentiation between a driver and a
stimulus. ECTO is working on incorporating some of the exposures requested
for use in DO and we will continue to chisel away at that list to support
the use case if still needed.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1508 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABBB4DKOE3HUGPBOGD2SHKDUKMB5XANCNFSM45A7M5YQ>
.
--
Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Institute for Genome Sciences
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061
Baltimore, MD 21201
P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756
***@***.***
|
So I'll close this issue. The results will be visible on the obofoundry.org site as soon as this PR is merged #1652 |
Use this form to register a new ontology with the OBO Foundry.
Please read the instructions provided here:
http://obofoundry.org/docs/NewOntologyRegistrationInstructions.html
Requesting inclusion of this new application ontology to:
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo
Ontology title
Disease Drivers
Requested ID space
DISDRIV
- requesting the ID space for the purl, but will not be creating IDs, as this is an application ontology
Ontology location
GitHub repository:
https://github.com/DiseaseOntology/DiseaseDriversOntology
Contact person
Name: Lynn Schriml
Email address: [email protected] or [email protected]
GitHub username: lschriml
Issue tracker
https://github.com/DiseaseOntology/DiseaseDriversOntology/issues
Ontology license
CC0 1.0 Universal
https://github.com/DiseaseOntology/DiseaseDriversOntology/blob/main/LICENSE
Available ontology formats
What domain is the ontology intended to cover?
exposure stressors specific to those associated with disease
Related OBO Foundry ontologies
This application ontology is built with the upper level structure of Exposure Ontology (ExO).
The list of exposure stressors was compiled in collaboration with ExO (Cynthia Grondin, @cjgrondin)
and ECTO (Lauren Chan, @laurenechan ).
The ID and purl for each term in the proposed "Disease Drivers Ontology" have been identified from
OBOFoundry ontologies.
Including: ExO- Exposure ontology (10), CHEBI (42), OMIT - Ontology for MIRNA Target (10), ENVO (9), DRON - The Drug Ontology (1), NCIT - NCI Thesaurus OBO Edition (36), FOODON (1), FOBI - Food-Biomarker Ontology (1), HP (3), ZECO - Zebrafish Experimental Conditions Ontology (1), GSSO - Gender, Sex, and Sexual Orientation ontology (1) and one non-OBO : EFO (1)
Terms that did not already exist in an ontology were requested for inclusion in EnvO and CHEBI.
@amalik01 - 5 new ChEBI entries now created
ebi-chebi/ChEBI#4084 (comment)
polyfluoroalkyl substance (CHEBI:172406)
perfluoroalkyl substance (CHEBI:172397)
glycol ether (CHEBI:172390)
brominated flame retardant (CHEBI:172368)
heavy metal (CHEBI:5631)
@pbuttigieg
EnvironmentOntology/envo#1110 (comment)
terms requested: secondhand smoke, mother to child smoking, hurricane, heat, strobing light
[in progress]
ECTO term exposure to cigarette smoking via maternal (ECTO:0300003)
I identified ~ 120 terms, proposed to be incorporated into the Exposure Ontology,
to be used in the Human Disease Ontology as an imported ontology for defining exposures related to human diseases.
Cynthia (CTD - ExO) and I put together a spreadsheet that maps most of these terms to other OBO Foundry ontologies (CHEBI, NCIT, ECTO, etc)
ECTO is:
- adding new ECTO terms to provide 'exposure to X' terms for the proposed stressors
- issue to track these needs within ECTO
- EnvironmentOntology/environmental-exposure-ontology#182
Emails from : ExO and ECTO:
After discussing with the ECTO modeling team, we agree that inclusion of these terms or any other stressor terms used as variables in ECTO as children of 'exposure stressor' would be beyond the scope of ECTO
After discussion with the rest of the CTD team that originally developed ExO, we agree with Lauren's assessment that attempting to add many individual stressors as child terms of exposure stressor would initiate the creation of a giant branch in ExO that will be difficult to manage, grow constantly, duplicate existing work, and thus go beyond the scope of ExO. The intent is to keep ExO a high level schema for modeling exposures. However, it seems that many of the terms already exist and could be imported for your modeling purposes.
Intended use/related projects
Human Disease Ontology - intended use: for defining mechanisms of disease, specific to biological, chemical, physical and psychosocial agents and ecological perturbations.
Will maintain this application ontology, with all IDs/purl from other ontologies.
As the inclusion of the 'exposure stressors' was beyond the scope of collaborating ontologies (ExO, ECTO), the solution to be able to ontologically model these stressors as related to human disease, was to create this discrete (and small) list of terms.
Related Projects:
Exposure Ontology
ECTO: Environmental conditions, treatments and exposures ontology
Additional comments or remarks
Requesting an OBO purl, to enable re-use of this application ontology.
Metadata
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: