Fix axioms on uncinate fasciculus and added disjoint for brainstem #2343
Conversation
| relationship: overlaps UBERON:0002275 ! reticular formation | ||
| relationship: overlaps UBERON:0002298 ! brainstem | ||
| relationship: overlaps UBERON:0002726 ! cervical spinal cord | ||
| relationship: overlaps UBERON:0003023 {source="NIFSTD"} ! pontine tegmentum |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shawntanzk I'd remove the NIFSTD source, because it's not the source of this overlaps rel.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That was there on the part_of relation from before - I wonder if it shows provenance? cause the definition doesn't mention pons/pontine tegmentum at all. Will try to look into NIFSTD to check this, if not find why this is there from literature
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might be worth keeping as NIFSTD is at least the source of a partonomy relationship, even if they didn't choose the right one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok trying to open NIF on protege is killing it lol, im going to assume that the partonomy relationship is there (don't see partonomy relationships in general on bioportal where the user facing nif is at) - either way, since it was there before I think it should be kept
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shawntanzk I added a comment. Other than that, all looks good to me and ready to merge.
Fixes #2341 (change part of to overlaps, and added a whole bunch of overlaps that is in the textual definition but not in logical definition)
Fixes #2342