In the FMA (Foundational Model of Anatomy ontology), anatomical entities are canonica. That is, the entities are what most people have. For example, most of us are born with 10 toes. But some of us are borne with missing toes, or perhaps extra toes.

So, how do we represent these canonical entities? It seem to me that they are information artifacts of some kind. They are based on current anatomical literature and a general body of knowledge shared by experts. But where would they go in IAO? If they do not belong in IAO then where?

Hi there, Well the lions share of anatomy ontologies represent canonical anatomy. I am not sure what you are asking for wrt IAO, but the obo-anatomy listserve would be a good place to discuss.

Cheers, Melissa

The observation is that canonical anatomy clashes with realist anatomy unless the right kind of care is taken. Fabian has suggested that this care is in the form of modal operators. That is, there is not a canonical anatomy instances of which never occur, there are a bunch of assertions about what happens in the canonical case.

Bill is raising the issue of whether the "proper care" is to instead handle the "canonical" issue as an information entity issue.

I'd like him to elaborate more on why he thinks that might work...