measures characteristic

[ddooley]

and inverse 'characteristic measured by'

[bpeters42]

Diff has a bunch of lines moving around. More than expected.
Inverse property is incorrect,.

[wdduncan]

Since the the relation holds between a process and a quality, do we to make the label more reflective of that? E.g.:

• process measures characteristic
• characteristic measured by process

This would make it clear that it is not a datum that holds measurement information.

[wdduncan]

Since the COB import has been added to the ODK file, I think this addresses #716.
Do others agree?

[ddooley]

Re "process measures characteristic" label etcl, I feel it is intuitive that "measures" is tied to a measuring process, so no need to spell that out in label.

[wdduncan]

I agree 'measures' brings to mind a process, but I thought it may need to be made clearer what is doing the measuring.
E.g., When I step on scale, there is a measurement that happens. But, just reading the label measures characteristic, one might not understand whether it is it the scale (i.e., device) that measures my weight or the applying of pressure (i.e., process) that does the measuring?
For the measures characteristic relation, it is the latter, but I can see how someone might think it is the former (i.e., device).

[bpeters42]

I added my comments to the issue rather than this pull request so that they can viewed in context.

[ddooley]

I'm going to have to redo this one. Its getting too complicated trying to resolve diffs with pre-UBERON integration

[anitacaron]

Hi @ddooley, I'll update this PR to align with the master. You don't need to worry about redoing the work.

[anitacaron]

Note: COB import is empty. If there isn't a COB term to import, I'd recommend removing the COB import.

[ddooley]

Yes I guess that COB import can be removed. I'd put it in thinking I could import OBI terms that way, but to my surprise one can't fetch 3rd party terms from COB indirectly (as mentioned in last RO meeting).

[ddooley]

Switch to BFO:0000020 is now done!

[ddooley]

I think @bpeters42 conversation about big diff is also taken care of with your work.

[github-actions]

This PR has not seen any activity in 90 days and has been marked as stale. If it is no longer needed, please close the PR. Otherwise, please update the PR with a status update.

[ddooley]

I did another merge of master into this branch and I think outstanding issues are taken care of?

[ddooley]

@wdduncan @bpeters42 final touchups are finished!

[anitacaron]

Technically, I approve. It still needs an ontology review.

[bpeters42]

I think the pull request as is doesn't do much harm; there is still a lot to be resolved for when we transition to modeling values of measurements via @jamesaoverton approach, but this will not make that worse, and it has been requested for a while. So I would approve. (apart from the minor typo I found)

[jamesaoverton]

@bpeters42 I have concerns about the bigger picture here, but I agree that this PR should go ahead.

[anitacaron]

Approving again after fixing a typo in the inverse property's definition.