Wikidata:Property proposal/is model of

has role in modeling

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Done: has role in modeling (P6530) (Talk and documentation)

Description	Relation between a research artefact and an entity it is used to study, in virtue of its replicating or approximating features of the studied entity.
Represents	gene (Q7187)
Data type	Item
Example 1	Dbh (Q14907562) → dopamine beta-hydroxylase deficiency (Q1242612)
Example 2	Fmr1 (Q14882346) → fragile X syndrome (Q221472)
Example 3	Fmr1 (Q14882346) → premature ovarian failure (Q647630)
Example 4	Fmr1 (Q14882346) → fragile X-associated tremor/ataxia syndrome (Q1440436)
Source	http://www.ontobee.org/ontology/RO?iri=http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0003301
Planned use	Enrich Wikidata with these type of gene disease models from the Mouse Genome Informatics resource
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)
See also	https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/288

Motivation

We would like to capture links between mouse genes and human diseases stated in Mouse Genome Informatics (Q1951035) in Wikidata. This property is inspired by the "is model property of the OBO relation ontology. is model of (RO_0003301). We'd like to be able to link together a gene and the disease that this gene, when modified in some biological system, is used to investigate. The label "is model of", might be a bit confusing, since a gene is not a model of a disease. However, we would like to align this property with its equivalent in the relational ontology. Within the relational ontology there is also a discussion going on how to label this. The consensus there seems to be to stick with "is model of". Suggestions for better terms are welcome. Andrawaag (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support David (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment @Andrawaag: What about 'used to study' as the property label? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support - Salgo60 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• I think this should have a better/more specific property label. --Yair rand (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Support. Andrew Su (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment @Andrawaag: This could be marked ready but people seem to want a different name. Is "used to study" suitable? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @ArthurPSmith: Personally, I also prefer a different name, since I do recognise the current term to be too generic. At the same time I prefer to align the semantics between this proposed property and [RO_0003301]. However, on that ontology the same discussion - being too generic - is going on and consensus there seems to lean towards "has role in modeling". Maybe we should proactively adopt that term. Although quoting shakespeare on the importance of a name, I am fine with any label, as long as the semantics between RO_0003301 and this property remain the same. I prefer "has role in modelling", but won't object to "used to study". --Andrawaag (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • and just a quick note that in this reviewed-but-unmerged pull request, the proposed official label is "has role in modeling", but "is used to study" is included as an official "alternate label". So as long as we have a mapping to RO_0003301, I don't think it much matters which label we use here. My two cents... Best, Andrew Su (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, YULdigitalpreservation, ArthurPSmith, Andrew Su, Salgo60, Andrawaag: @Yair rand:  Done: has role in modeling (P6530). − Pintoch (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)