Menu ▾ ▴

#692 is_orthogonal_to relation

relations
accepted
bjoernpeters
None
5
2014-02-26
2014-02-04
Philippe Rocca-Serra
No

Following OBI call held on February 3rd,2014 and Presentation by Heiner Oberkampf,

the need for a new relation 'is_orthogonal_to' is needed to indicate positional property between dimensions being measured.
The use case concerns for instance organ/anatomical structures/tumor reported dimensions, not necessarily the organisational dimensions/axis of the organism itself.

note: relate to spatial regions and 'cartesian coordinate datum' ?

Related

OBI Terms: #692

Discussion

  • bjoernpeters

    bjoernpeters - 2014-02-24

    Discussed on the call what domain and range could be. The immediate use case needs this to be between diameters which are in PATO under quality/morphology/1d-extend/length/diameter. Proposals were: Limit domain and range to '1d-extend' qualities (but not all the ones listed would be valid, and this excludes e.g. orthogonality between a line and a plane). Alternatively use 'quality' as domain and range which is rather broad. None of these capture how this is related to 'spatial region' or 'site'. Very specific would be 'has_orthogonal_diameter' with domain and range diameter. This should not offend anyone, and we can always replace with a more general relation later if that is worked out.

    Propose this to list; need to import 'diameter'.

     

  • bjoernpeters

    bjoernpeters - 2014-02-24
    • status: open --> accepted
    • assigned_to: bjoernpeters
     

  • Alan Ruttenberg

    Alan Ruttenberg - 2014-02-24

    I had an earlier idea about making coordinate systems be information objects about space. In that case orthogonality can be defined on the side of the information object.

    However if the use case is anatomy then consider
    http://www.obofoundry.org/cgi-bin/detail.cgi?id=spatial

     

  • Melissa Haendel

    Melissa Haendel - 2014-02-24

    consider coordination with the BSPO property:
    orthogonal_to
    http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BSPO_0015005

     

  • Heiner Oberkampf

    Heiner Oberkampf - 2014-02-26

    Thank you very much for the hint!

    The BSPO ontology seems to be very useful for this use case. Probably one could reuse the orthogonal_to relation.
    The only limitation I see is that the domain and range are 'anatomical axis' and 'anatomical plane'. Do I miss something or is the orthogonal_to relation always between some axis and some plane?

    What I would additionally need is orthogonality between two axis (within some plane).
    Also I would like to use orthogonal relations between lines/axis which are not necessrayly in parallel to the axis as defined under 'anatomical axis' http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BSPO_0000010. For example the axis shown in http://www.recist.com/recist-in-practice/19.html are independent of any predefined body axis, but only determined by the form of the measured lymph node and the anatomical plane.
    How could I do this with BSPO?

     

  • Melissa Haendel

    Melissa Haendel - 2014-02-26

    Hi Heiner,
    You are correct, orthogonal_to is currently defined between a plane and an axis. I agree it could be broadened to include either line/axes or planes. Alternatively, we could create a new property perpendicular_to that only held between anatomical lines. We have a softer property approximately_perpendicular_to that is used similar to your use case, but it is still referring to axes and not to anatomical lines.

    I think my recommendation would be to create a new property, perpendicular_to that held between anatomical lines, what do you think?
    Also, you can put requests on the BSPO tracker, I will move this discussion over there for our records.
    Thanks
    melissa

     

Log in to post a comment.