Align somehow with PATO?

I haven't thought this through, but should this:

Line 1824 in f30f21b

id: opposite_to

be aligned with PATO: https://github.com/pato-ontology/pato/blob/4a927026b5fac9d2809c1eee3be39a9e9284c1dd/pato.obo#L1741

I assume here it is a class, and the other is a property, but just wanted to raise awareness. Feel free to just close if nonsense

@cmungall

Was this issue solved or closed?

There are some PATO classes that do not have corresponding object properties in BSPO:

medial to http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/PATO_0001191

lateral to http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/PATO_0001193

proximal to http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/PATO_0001195

distal to http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/PATO_0001234

These are, I think, as important as anterior to or posterior to.

Thanks!

I can add these classes in BSPO. Not sure what it means to align them with PATO, though. Is it just a matter of adding XREFs?

I think just informally: for all the positional and relational qualities to have a relationship in BSPO.. I would just add these ones here and then close.

Thanks, I am already using them!

Just a comment on the original question about 'opposite to'—I don't think there is much to be aligned between the BSPO property and the PATO property. The BSPO one is a spatial relationship and the PATO one has to do with meaning. Also the BSPO one is an ordinary relation between instances and the PATO is more at the type level.

Ok. Then let’s just close?!

Oops, how 'opposite to' and 'contralateral to' (child of opposite to') differ from each other?

Oops, how 'opposite to' and 'contralateral to' (child of opposite to') differ from each other?

'contralateral to' is opposite across a specific axis.

Ok. Then let’s just close?!

I think the issue should remain open, because there are other PATO classes we should align to.