Add BFO root for "disorder function"

[cthoyt]

We added BFO roots for the other 2/3 main branches of IDPO in a previous commit, so it makes sense to think about where to put disorder function in the BFO hierarchy as well.

This also brings us back to the discussion about what's actually under "disorder function" and how to frame each of those terms in a consistent sense (as it's a bit of a mash-up at the moment)

similar to gene product or complex activity in GO, I think it makes sense to have this also be a BFO:process

[XimeAixa]

We’re considering mapping disorder function to BFO:function (a realizable disposition), not BFO:process.

We’ve revised its definition and synonyms to better reflect the community’s original intent, and we’re keeping the current label to align with common usage:

• Label: disorder function
• Synonyms: exact: intrinsic disorder function, exact: disorder feature
• Definition: A functional capability or feature related to the intrinsic disorder nature of a protein or protein region, encompassing both its active functions with other molecules and the intrinsic features that may enable additional activities.

Some examples of how the term is used:
Intrinsic Disorder and Protein Function
The molecular basis for cellular function of intrinsically disordered protein regions
flDPnn: Accurate intrinsic disorder prediction with putative propensities of disorder functions

On the other side, BFO:function:
A function is a disposition that exists in virtue of the bearer’s physical make-up and this physical make-up is something the bearer possesses because it came into being, either through evolution (in the case of natural biological entities) or through intentional design (in the case of artifacts), in order to realize processes of a certain sort. (axiom label in BFO2 Reference: [064-001])

Our interpretation is that intrinsic disorder confers capabilities that a protein/IDR bears because of its physical make-up, and those capabilities are realized in processes (e.g., phase separation) rather than being processes themselves.

If you see a stronger case for a different placement or if you have other ideas please let us know!

[cthoyt]

I am only an amateur, this is a great thing to ask the wider OBO community during review. My suggestion is to follow your gut and put it under BFO function, then share this reasoning (link to your comment) during OBO review!

[XimeAixa]

Ok, we’ll provisionally place disorder function under BFO:function and seek feedback at the OBO review. Thanks!