<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:obo_purl="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:ns0="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/">
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002163">
<rdfs:label>spatially disjoint from</rdfs:label>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000115>A is spatially_disjoint_from B if and only if they have no parts in common</obo_purl:IAO_0000115>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000117 xml:lang="en">Chris Mungall</obo_purl:IAO_0000117>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000114 rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000125"/>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000116 xml:lang="en">There are two ways to encode this as a shortcut relation. The other possibility to use an annotation assertion between two classes, and expand this to a disjointness axiom. </obo_purl:IAO_0000116>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000119 rdf:resource="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22293552"/>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000232>Note that it would be possible to use the relation to label the relationship between a near infinite number of structures - between the rings of saturn and my left earlobe. The intent is that this is used for parsiomoniously for disambiguation purposes - for example, between siblings in a jointly exhaustive pairwise disjointness hierarchy</obo_purl:IAO_0000232>
<obo_purl:RO_0001900 rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0001901"/>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000424>BFO_0000051 exactly 0 (BFO_0000050 some ?Y)</obo_purl:IAO_0000424>
</owl:ObjectProperty>
</rdf:RDF>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:obo_purl="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/" xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:ns0="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/">
<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002163">
<rdfs:label>spatially disjoint from</rdfs:label>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000115>A is spatially_disjoint_from B if and only if they have no parts in common</obo_purl:IAO_0000115>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000117 xml:lang="en">Chris Mungall</obo_purl:IAO_0000117>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000114 rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000125"/>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000116 xml:lang="en">There are two ways to encode this as a shortcut relation. The other possibility to use an annotation assertion between two classes, and expand this to a disjointness axiom. </obo_purl:IAO_0000116>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000119 rdf:resource="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22293552"/>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000232>Note that it would be possible to use the relation to label the relationship between a near infinite number of structures - between the rings of saturn and my left earlobe. The intent is that this is used for parsiomoniously for disambiguation purposes - for example, between siblings in a jointly exhaustive pairwise disjointness hierarchy</obo_purl:IAO_0000232>
<obo_purl:RO_0001900 rdf:resource="http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0001901"/>
<obo_purl:IAO_0000424>BFO_0000051 exactly 0 (BFO_0000050 some ?Y)</obo_purl:IAO_0000424>
</owl:ObjectProperty>
</rdf:RDF>