RO includes quality from both PATO and BFO

[GoogleCodeExporter]

RO includes PATO:morphology as a direct subclass of BFO:quality and also 
morphology as a subclass of physical object quality which is a subclass of PATO 
quality. I think it would be good to commit to one of the other. I have weak 
preference for BFO:quality.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by rlwalls2...@gmail.com on 3 Jun 2015 at 11:28

[nlharris]

@cmungall can this be closed?

[nlharris]

Can this be closed?

[matentzn]

@shawntanzk lets check this together

[shawntanzk]

@matentzn happy to look into this, but this is honestly beyond my admittedly limited knowledge >.<
Happy to put this on the tech board and go through what needs to be done on a Monday sprint?

[matentzn]

The action item is:

Add QC check for preventing punning of annotation and object properties. We would want this check in all ontologies, and its a good problem for Anita to look into. We can discuss on Monday.

[shawntanzk]

related to #101

[matentzn]

My comment has nothing to do with this ticket must have been a mix up.. Sorry.

@cmungall can we remove the PATO->BFO assumptions in RO? Shouldnt this come from PATO itself?

[github-actions]

This issue has not seen any activity in the past 2 years. It will be closed automatically 60 days from now if no action is taken.