NTR: owns; is owned by

[wdduncan]

Fixes #674

[wdduncan]

@mbrochhausen @CDowland @zhengj2007 I've add the terms.
Note: RO doesn't have an elucidation AP. So, I took some liberties with the definition.

Who do you suggest to review?

[zhengj2007]

I recommended @mbrochhausen.

[zhengj2007]

@wdduncan Could you also use the inverse of axiom to indicate that owns is inverse relation of 'is owned by' and vice versa? Besides, here is the definition of OBIB:0000735 is owned by in OBIB:
A is owned by b if b has complete power over a. All rights and obligations of ownership are grounded in this (primitive) relation. The claims and obligations of ownership can be partially transferred to a third party by the owner, b.
Can we also add it in the RO and indicate the definition coming from OBIB:0000735 use 'definition source' ? Thanks!

[wdduncan]

@zhengj2007 I added the inverse of axiom for owns and is owned by, and the definition source (dcterms:source) for is owned by as OBIB:0000735.

As for the definition of is owned by, the wording is different. It uses the phrase "complete power", where as the definition for owns uses the phrase "full disposal". These seem subtly different to me.

Also, "complete power" seems a bit strong. I own my dog, but I don't have complete power over him.

[wdduncan]

@wdduncan I need to change the IRI. This PR has been open so long that I forgot about it, and accidentally used the IRI.

[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.

[wdduncan]

I think this is ready. @CDowland What do you think?

[CDowland]

@wdduncan I did a review/approval yesterday as requested, but it's still showing that another is required. It says "reviewers with write access," which I don't think includes me.

[wdduncan]

@cthoyt @balhoff @zhengj2007 @cmungall @matentzn @jamesaoverton @lschriml
Can one of you please review this PR?

[cthoyt]

besides the spurious diffs, it looks fine

[zhengj2007]

@wdduncan Could you please update the dcterms:source for 'owns'? It should be OBIB:0000732.

Since I was not assigned as the reviewer, I cannot review and approve the request.

[mbrochhausen]

Based on the OBIB discussion, we do not need the DCterms: source.

[wdduncan]

@zhengj2007 can you please approve this PR.

[zhengj2007]

@zhengj2007 can you please approve this PR.

@wdduncan Could you please assign me as a reviewer? Thanks!

[wdduncan]

@zhengj2007 I can't add you as a reviewer. It seems that you are not a member of obo-rel repo ... sorry I thought you were.

@anitacaron Can I add her so that she can review this PR? If so, what level of permissions does Jie need?

[anitacaron]

@wdduncan I added @zhengj2007 with a 'write' role; we need to wait for her to accept the invite to add her as a reviewer here.

[wdduncan]

Thanks @anitacaron!

[zhengj2007]

@wdduncan I added @zhengj2007 with a 'write' role; we need to wait for her to accept the invite to add her as a reviewer here.

@anitacaron Thanks for invitation.
@wdduncan I have accepted the invitation. You can assign me to review the request now.

[wdduncan]

Thanks Jie. I assigned you as a reviewer.

[zhengj2007]

@wdduncan According to Mathias' comments: "Based on the OBIB discussion, we do not need the DCterms: source.", RO may remove "DCterms: source" annotations associated with 'owns' and 'is owned by'. If RO prefers to keep the DCterms: source annotation to reference OBIB terms, it need to change "DCterms: source OBIB:0000735" to "DCterms: source OBIB:0000732" to term RO:0017008 'owns'.

[wdduncan]

@zhengj2007 I believe @mbrochhausen said that the dcterms:source annotation was not needed for the owns/is owned by. Am I misunderstanding you @mbrochhausen .

AFAIK, dcterms:source is not required. If you think it is required can you please add it.

[zhengj2007]

@zhengj2007 I believe @mbrochhausen said that the dcterms:source annotation was not needed for the owns/is owned by. Am I misunderstanding you @mbrochhausen .

AFAIK, dcterms:source is not required. If you think it is required can you please add it.

@wdduncan Yes. However, it is still in ro-edit.owl. So, it should be either removed or corrected if you want to keep it.

[wdduncan]

Ah ... okay. Sorry @zhengj2007 I misunderstood you :)

I removed the dcterms:source annotation for the definition of is owned by.

[zhengj2007]

@wdduncan There is dcterms:source associated with 'owns' need to be removed too.

[wdduncan]

Thanks @zhengj2007!
I removed it.

[zhengj2007]

Actually 4 reviewers approved this pull request. Don't know why it only shows 1 approval.