-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 48
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
Getting Relationships #174
Comments
I think it's expected behavior that some axioms that do not conform to the OBO Profile of OWL are not translated For example, this axiom: transmitted by some (vehicle-borne ingestion transmission or congenital transmission) involves a union on the RHS. This just doesn't fit into the datamodel. While you can imagine pronto translating this to two relationships, this would actually be dangerous and wrong. Not all listerioses have a congenital origin. What is your use case? What would you hope to do with the axioms once translated into a python datamodel? Also, when thinking about these kinds of things it helps to think in terms of "Axioms" when talking about OWL, and "relationships" in an OBO/graph-like object model. Sometimes there is a mapping between these concepts, sometimes not. |
Hi. Thanks a lot for your reply. Your explanation makes perfect sense. |
just to be clear, the example here doesn't involve reification at all. I think when translating to a KG it makes sense to drop edges with unions. You count turn the blank node into a node in your graph, and then use a reasoner to make is-a links. e.g
but tbh I think the value is a little minimal I have been attempting to gather interest from the broader community about a standard way of mapping from OWL to KGs, see https://github.com/cmungall/owlstar -- this is pretty much a format-independent generalization of what pronto already does with OWL You may also be interested in https://github.com/biolink/kgx We have made kgx files for all of the OBO ontologies, see https://github.com/Knowledge-Graph-Hub/kg-obo |
Hi. I have used pronto for the last few months. First of all, kudos to the coders, it's great work.
Coming to the issue I am facing, I initially thought that pronto is able to extract all the relationships mentioned in an owl file, no matter how convoluted (read reified) the relations are. But then, I recently understood that there are some limitations.
For example, while parsing Disease Ontology OWL file, I saw that some relations were extracted while others were not:
For the following class:
pronto was not able to extract these relations among others:
IDO_0000664 NCBITaxon_1637
IDO_0000664 NCBITaxon_1639
but pronto was able to extract these relations:
RO_0002452 SYMP_0000458
RO_0002452 SYMP_0000570
RO_0002452 SYMP_0019145
Can anyone point me to method/strategies using which I can extract all of these relations?
Thanks,
Krishanu
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: