Q: Why is the equivalentTo axiom only an editor note of "measurement datum"?

[StroemPhi]

While working with CHMO, I noticed that CHMO:assay output is almost the same as IAO:measurement datum (see also CHMO#13). The only difference seems to be that the former has the equivalence to axiom: data item and is_specified_output_of some assay and the latter has this only as an editor note from 2009.

I've spend quite some time going through old issues in IAO and OBI, but couldn't find an explicit explanation to why this axiom was not asserted in IAO but is there only as an editor note.

An answer to this question would be needed in order to straighten this out, I guess.

[zhengj2007]

It's been discussed in the OBI call before. I recalled that the measurement datum should be the output of assay but cannot remember whether will implement it using equivalentTo axiom. Will bring the issue to OBI dev call and update it in the IAO.

[zhengj2007]

Discussed on OBI call 2023-03-20. We agree that
IAO:measurement datum =data item and is_specified_output_of some assay

We make the changes in IAO.

[StroemPhi]

I just wanted to note, that within the data item branch in OBI we currently have a number of classes with the suffix "assay datum" that are logically defined along the same line (=data item and is_specified_output_of some XXX assay).

So once the above logical definition is added to IAO:measurement datum, these classes would then be rightly inferred to be its children, while at the same time remaining its siblings due to their logical definitions. Thus maybe this needs to be discussed further in another OBI/IAO call before making a PR that closes this issue.

And wouldn't it also make sense to provide "assay datum" or "assay output" as synonyms then?