OBO Foundry Food Ontology
Interconnectivity
Damion Dooley a,*, Liliana Andrés-Hernándezb, Georgeta Bordeac, Leigh Carmodyd, Duccio Cavalierie,
Lauren Chanf, Pol Castellano-Escuderg, Carl Lachath, Fleur Mouginc, Francesco Vitalii, Chen Yangh,
Magalie Weberj, Hande Kucuk McGintyk, Matthew LangelaCentre for Infectious Disease Genomics and One Health, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
Southern Cross Plant Science, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, AustraliacBordeaux Population Health, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, Franced
The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, CT, USAe
Department of Biology, University of Florence, Florence, ItalyfCollege of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USAg
Biomarkers and Nutritional & Food Metabolomics Research Group,University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spainh
Department of Food Technology, Safety and Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgiumi
Institute of Agricultural Biology and Biotechnology - National Research Council, Milano, Italyj
INRAE, UR BIA, Biopolymères Interactions Assemblages, Nantes, FrancekDepartment of Computer Science, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USAlInternational Center for Food Ontology Operability Data and Semantics, Davis, California, USAb

Abstract: Since its creation in 2016, the FoodOn food ontology has become an interconnected partner in various academic andgovernment projects that span agricultural and public health domains. This paper examines recent data interoperability
capabilities arising from food-related ontologies belonging to, or compatible with, the encyclopedic Open Biological andBiomedical Ontology Foundry (OBO) ontology platform, and how research organizations and industry might utilize them fortheir own projects or for data exchange. Projects are seeking standardized vocabulary across many food supply activities ranging
from agricultural production, harvesting, preparation, food processing, marketing, distribution and consumption, as well as moreindirect health, economic, food security and sustainability analysis and reporting tools. To satisfy this demand for controlled
vocabulary requires establishing domain specific ontologies whose curators coordinate closely to produce recommended patterns
for food system vocabulary.
Keywords: Ontology, data harmonization, OBO Foundry, food systems, public health, epidemiology, multi-ontology framework,
One Health

1. Introduction
Ontologists and semantic web advocates envision a future in which stakeholders in all sectors will be able totake advantage of a harmonious federated data landscape built on the interoperability prowess of ontologies. Thisdata interconnectivity vision has been spearheaded by life science related academic and government research
agencies in an effort to describe research datasets and papers. To this end, the multilateral Open Biological andBiomedical Ontology Foundry (OBO) [1] curation consortium manages a collection of domain specific ontologies– taxonomy, chemistry, anatomy, genomics, disease, etc. – that facilitate interoperability by adhering to a set ofterm curation and logical relation patterns. A current review [2] of farm-to-fork data harmonization approaches
reinforces the importance of ontologies such as the OBO FoodOn [3] ontology for food product description andprocessing, and how much more work needs to be done. While a multi-ontology framework for describing andguiding agriculture, food, diet and health was proposed in 2007 [4] around the time that OBO was launched, only

*Corresponding author. E-mail: damion_dooley@sfu.ca (D. Dooley)in the last few years have OBO ontologies emerged to provide vocabulary and design patterns for food-related
domains such as agriculture, diet and nutrition.
In this paper we provide an overview of food-related OBO ontologies and their connections to FoodOn and othercore OBO ontologies, as well as their current pitfalls and future development aims. We aim to satisfy an audiencethat understands the basics of ontology, and wants to be aware of what the OBO foundry recently has to offer in thefood domain for terminology and object properties without having to examine each of the given ontologies directly.
Appendix 1 includes an abbreviation dictionary and URLs where more information about referenced ontologies canbe found, including ontology GitHub repositories where versions can be retrieved.
1.1. The FoodOn Food Ontology
FoodOn is described in detail in its inaugural paper [3] and in the https://foodon.org website, so here we provide
a brief introduction, followed by overviews of the other food related ontologies. Generally, we seek to show how
the collective community of older and newer OBO ontology curators is supporting the harmonization effort requiredfor cross-domain food systems analysis. FoodOn’s mandate is to describe and provide precomposed terms forgeneric (non-branded) food products that a food producer, food manufacturer / processor, or consumer can find in
the supply chain, ranging from wild or farmed food, to processed, wholesale, retail, prepared, restaurant or homecooked food. FoodOn now offers over 24,000 terms in its extensive food product hierarchy and description facets,
such as applied cooking treatments, preservation methods, and packaging, along with another roughly 10,000 OBO
ontology terms including chemistry, anatomy and food source organism (plant, animal, fungi or algae) taxonomy
domains.
FoodOn entered the OBO Foundry in 2016, transforming and evolving the basic structure of LanguaL [5], a
popular food composition database (FCD) vocabulary created by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) in 1975. During FoodOn’s inception, it adopted hundredsof Environment Ontology (ENVO) [6] food terms, and it integrated with OBO’s Chemical Entities of BiologicalInterest (ChEBI) [7] ontology which organizes molecular entities - mainly 'small' chemical compounds (natural orsynthetic) - pertinent to the processes of living organisms. FoodOn imports anatomical terms from the Plant
Ontology(PO) [8] and UBERON multi-species anatomy ontology [9], taxonomy from NCBITaxon [10], and imports
dietary and nutritional terms from the Compositional Dietary Nutrition Ontology (CDNO) [11] and Ontology for
Nutritional Studies (ONS) [12]. Finally, FoodOn organises food related data items and processes under the
Information Artifact Ontology (IAO) [13] and Ontology for Biomedical Investigation (OBI) [14] classes
respectively, and draws mainly on existing Relation Ontology (RO) relations [15], with just a few others introduced,
like “has ingredient” and “has defining ingredient”.
1.2. Food Related Ontology Use Cases
Use case examples of how FoodOn and other OBO ontologies are being used can be found in a number ofstandards and database projects expressed in knowledge graph or tabular formats.
Food sample composition, nutrition and bioactive analytics:• The Rockefeller Foundation supported Periodic Table of Food Initiative is coordinating data collection andmass spectrometry analysis of the nutrients and other bioactive compounds of over 1000 foods that are
representative of consumption patterns around the world. Ontologies such as FoodOn and AgrO [16] are being
utilized to describe the biosample context of sampled foods.
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) FoodData Central website provides FoodOn identifiers andcategories for its Foundation Foods database of single-ingredient foods and their nutritional analytic data.
FoodOn mapping to all single ingredient SR Legacy database foods is also underway.
• WikiFCD, a wikibase database of food composition (FCD) and nutrient information mainly dedicated tostandardizing and bringing online the FCD’s of developing nations, references FoodOn terms.
• FoodKG [17], a knowledge graph launched in 2019 representing over 1 million recipes, is constructed with anontology combining FoodOn, ChEBI and other resources like the USDA Nutrient Database [18], and theIm2recipe photograph-recipe matching project (http://im2recipe.csail.mit.edu/). It enables querying of recipes2

•by ingredient, cook time, course type, and meal type. Competency questions (factoid: “How much fat is inbutter?”, comparison: “Which has more fat, butter or olive oil?” and constraint: “Which dish has chicken, onion,and garlic?”) can be applied to its knowledge graph.
With the support of the FDA, the FDA Seafood Product List is included in FoodOn to expand the mapping ofcommon language fish names to scientific taxonomy names to improve food traceability and authentication.

Foodborne disease investigation:• The FDA GenomeTrakr database [19,20] which contains over 45,000 foodborne pathogen genomic sequences
and their metadata, are matched to FoodOn, National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) taxon(NCBITaxon) and ENVO ontology terms using a textual-sample description-to-ontology-term matchingsoftware called LexMapr [21]. GenomeTrakr records are then submitted to the NCBI Biosample sequence
repository to assist in foodborne outbreak and antimicrobial resistance research.
• The Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC) of minimum information standards (MIxS) is adding a foodpackage [22] for agriculture and industry-situated sampling metadata for pathogen and metagenomic analysis.
• The draft ISO/TC 34/SC 9 standard "Microbiology of the Food Chain — Whole Genome Sequencing, Typing
and Genomic Characterization of Foodborne Bacteria" makes extensive reference to FoodOn, NCBITaxon,
ENVO and other ontologies for particular fields.
• NCBI's One Health Enteric Package specification for US surveillance of foodborne pathogens [23], available
as part of its BioSample specification since 2022, provides data-entry spreadsheets along with guidelines to use
FoodOn, ENVO and AGRO terms for selected fields. A detailed study of surface swab site metadata
requirements that utilized OBO Foundry ontologies was integrated into this specification.[24]Figure 1 illustrates the emergence or expansion of food-related OBO ontologies to meet the needs of projects
like these, describing food composition, agricultural production, food processing and animal and human healthFig. 1: Key food-related ontologies within the OBO sphere, and some leading organizations and consortiums that curate them. The directionof ontology term import and export is indicated by the arrows of dotted lines; solid lines convey curation participation. Each ontology has acount of terms it introduces in proportion to all its terms including ones reused from other ontologies. Data provided byhttps://ontobee.org/ontostat as of October 25, 2022.

3

factors. The One Health [25] paradigm of interrelated human, animal, and environmental health that has emergedin the last decade also motivates interdisciplinary vocabulary, such as the Health Surveillance Ontology [26].
2. Methods
The co-authors of this paper led the development of most of the food-related ontologies reviewed here, and sohave informed a summary description and future direction of their respective ontology. Some are newer to ontology
development, and so have focused mainly on using the open-source Stanford Protégé editor [27] to curate their
ontology in W3C Web Ontology Language (OWL) 2.0 format [28], with perhaps an initial round of imported terms
from third party ontologies. Each author has made an effort to curate their ontology according to OBO Foundry
curation principles [29]. A minimum requirement, called The Minimum Information to Reference an External
Ontology Term (MIREOT) [30], is the reuse of classes and relations from other OBO ontologies to avoid the costly
and confusing situation where term entities having similar or identical semantics but different identifiers exist in
multiple ontologies. Our authors have often included the MIREOT import of individual terms or branches of third
party ontology hierarchies, in some cases by using a tool like OntoFox [31] to generate an OWL import file. Somehave merged this file directly into their main ontology, others have more advantageously kept it separately so it canbe refreshed over time. Figure 1 shows how many terms are introduced by a given ontology, out of a total number
filled out by imported, reused terms. Other OBO term management best practices they adhere to include:•••

New term requests (NTR) are handled usually via Github requests or larger bulk review and import projects.
Each accepted term gets an OBO standardized Permanent Uniform Resource Locator (PURL) [32] that
resolves to a term detail page provided by an ontology search engine like Ontobee.org [33].
Terms may be marked obsolete, and may include replacement references, but are never deleted.

Along with the MIREOT principle, this functionality fulfills FAIR data principles [34] (especially theinteroperability and reusability aims) insofar as any dataset annotated with a collection of OBO ontologies shouldhave unambiguous semantic references to terms that can evolve and remain translatable over time. Generally, all
OBO ontologies are asked to reuse existing relationship terms – the “data structure glue” – of object properties
between entities, which are mainly found in the Relation Ontology, and a handful of data properties between an
entity and some literal data value. However, some “application ontologies” are under pressure to support quick
development of databases and knowledge graphs and so introduce their own relations which are often very specificto their data models and thus confound the interoperability model of shared relations that OBO espouses. OBO isincreasingly excluding such ontologies from joining the foundry, and encouraging existing members to translate
their more general relations to RO or to have their more specialized relations added to RO.
Ontology maintenance and build technology is not detailed in this paper, but briefly some of the summarized
ontologies, such as FoodOn, employ more automated curation tools, while others are manually constructed. FoodOn
and others use the “ROBOT” [35] command line tool’s “template” option to manage terms that conform to the same
tabularized pattern of annotations and simple axioms. ROBOT’s “reason” command may be run to ensure OBO
ontologies and statements expressed with them are consistent with shared RO logical relations, along with the Basic
Formal Ontology (BFO) [36] or upcoming Core Ontology for Biology and Biomedicine (COB) [37] compatibility
that many aspire to. Both ROBOT and OntoFox can be introduced into a more automated Ontology Development
Kit [38] ontology build pipeline that includes ontology recompilation based on file changes, and logical andsyntactic checks. OBO also now provides a suite of external quality tests via the OBO Dashboard [39].
Due to their start-up phase, a number of this paper’s ontologies are single agency/single team efforts. Eventually,an OBO ontology is expected to attract more than one user, thus encouraging other stakeholders to be identified andencouraged to join the curation team, thereby improving an ontology’s standing as a de facto or more official
standard. A second approach is to have ontology curators involved in regular multilateral discussion with otherontology projects in a similar domain. To this end, the Joint Food Ontology Workgroup (JFOW) [40] was launchedin the spring of 2020 as an informal methodology for term development within the food systems domain. JFOW
was formed after FoodOn received batches of requests for diet and nutrition terms from a few other ontologies, but
was aware that the Ontology for Nutritional Studies was under development and targeting membership in OBO, and4

could be an opportune niche home for the requested terms. The workgroup convenes once a month withrepresentation from the NTR-requesting ontologies as well as USDA, FDA, and other academic and research
agencies keen to help and to assess the appropriate reuse of ontologies within their operations. During its initial 4months a corpus of over 60 diet and dietary pattern terms was discussed, reviewed, approved and then handed to
ONS for implementation. A similar discussion group, the Food Process Ontology Workgroup, convened to discuss
food process related ontologies and create a generic food processing model and closely related recipe and ingredientmodel. [41]3. Overview of Food Related Ontologies
Our overview begins with agriculture related ontologies and the bioactive compounds encountered there, thenmoves into pesticides and chemical exposures, then food processing and dietary pattern, and biomarkers arisingfrom that, followed by diseases and medical treatments, nutritional research study annotation, and finally animal
health and foodborne pathogen surveillance.
In a number of ontology overviews, we touch on the role selenium (ChEBI:27568) plays in human health [42]as an example. Selenium intake arising from its concentration in plants – a function of many agricultural factors
including soil concentration, supplementation, pH, drainage and microbiome – may lead to micronutrient under orover -nutrition (of the amino acid selenocysteine and derived selenoproteins), and knock-on health effects, many ofwhich require more research to clarify. Diseases such as Keshan disease are highly corelated to selenium deficiency
stemming from diet, agricultural soil and environmental conditions [43]. Toxic selenium ingestion by both animals
and humans via natural overabundance or improper use or formulation error of a nutritional supplement can lead toselenosis [44], while proper supplement use in thyroid disease therapy leads to improved clinical scores [45]. The
analysis of bioactive compounds such as selenium as factors in human and animal health can now benefit fromontologies that name biosample sources – from soil, plant and animal material, human blood, and stool – as well as
their contextual data - agricultural conditions and treatments, plant phenotypes, human diseases and symptoms.
3.1. AgrO, CO, TO, and PECO: Agriculture related ontologies
The Agronomy Ontology (AgrO) [16], launched in 2017 in the context of the CGIAR Platform for Big Data
in Agriculture, describes agronomic management practices, implements, and variables used during crop plot
experiments. It includes over 200 plant morphology traits from the Plant Trait Ontology(TO) [46], parameters
identified by agronomists and crop modelers from the pre-existing Crop Ontology (CO) [46,47], and a treatment
menu of 15 terms from the Plant Experimental Conditions Ontology (PECO) [48]. AgrO contains over 600
geography and geology related terms from ENVO, as well as 550 ChEBI terms and 155 Phenotype And Trait
Ontology (PATO) [49] terms. Along with harvested food product references, AgrO “crop residue” terms areimported from FoodOn to support research on reuse of such materials. Continuing the selenium example, AgrO
references various forms of selenium for sampling measurements, TO provides a “selenium content” biochemicalplant trait; and PECO provides a “selenium nutrient exposure” treatment.
AgrO is used in the CGIAR Agronomy Field Information Management System, a software tool that enables
the digital collection of agronomic trial data [50]. AgrO, ENVO and other ontologies can be used within the MIxS
package standard [51] for soil biosample metadata collection [52]. In the near future, to support the Periodic Tableof Food Initiative, AgrO will import FoodOn food and nutrition terms which are important to measure at the postharvest stage. As well, AgrO term language will be adjusted to cover commercial production crop treatments.
There is a future opportunity to further align TO biochemical traits and CDNO nutrient chemical concentrations.
3.2. CDNO: Compositional Dietary Nutrition Ontology
CDNO [53], launched in 2020, provides a hierarchy of over 1,000 terms for nutritional attributes - vitamins,
carbohydrates, lipids, minerals, proteins, etc. - and matching bioactive chemical concentrations from crops,
livestock, and fisheries that contribute to human diet and which are referenced in precision food commodity
laboratory analytics. Rather than directly mirror ChEBI’s hierarchy of molecular entities and their roles, CDNO

5

provides a more diet-and-nutrition community friendly arrangement (Figure 2) by essentially flattening ChEBI
hierarchies like “mineral nutrient” and “protein” to selected elements, and adding CDNO groupings like “plantsecondary metabolite”. Initially, CDNO, FoodOn and Plant Ontology (PO) curators worked together in acollaborative effort to establish a set of over 58 food raw materials entities. They additionally defined sources ofplant samples and crop production processes or stages from which the food raw material was taken.

Fig. 2: The top level CDNO ‘dietary chemical component" class and its subclasses, most of which are imported from ChEBI.

CDNO’s “nutritional component concentration” classes have a design pattern that uses PATO’s“concentration of” term that references a particular analyte in proportion to the BFO “material entity” specimenthat is being measured in. A specimen can be a plant or animal species’ anatomical part, yielding a comprehensive
way to measure nutritional attributes of biosamples (like seeds) throughout the food production lifecycle.
Following the selenium example, Figure 3 shows the “concentration of dietary selenium in material entity” classdefines a concentration characteristic of an analyte as part of some material entity biosample. The term’s OWL
logical “Equivalent To” definition is shown, as well as CDNO’s dietary selenium and its ChEBI subclasses which
may be measurement targets. To express selenium concentration in a whole wheat kernel, we need to reference“whole wheat kernel” a FoodOn reference that helpfully indicates (axiomatizes) the kind of plant anatomy part itis, and its taxonomic origin. These classes can combine in a graph database data structure (aka A-Box or instancedata) as shown in the “Graph DB expression” box of Figure 3, where each dashed box is an instance of a class,with its own identifier (not shown are data properties for specifying the concentration measurement itself).

Fig. 3: Visualization of how CDNO and FOODON classes can be brought together in a graph database statement about selenium
concentration in a whole wheat kernel sample.

“Concentration of dietary selenium in material entity” and “whole wheat kernel” are each an example of a“precomposed term” – a term that has an equivalency axiom describing a set of relations to other things thattogether are the criteria for recognizing something of its kind. In databases one may also encounter a “postcomposed” term, one which doesn’t have a preassigned ontology id, but which has the same searchable sentence
structure as a precomposed term, to match more detailed needs of researchers, for example comparing
concentration of dietary selenium in the endosperm versus germ part of a Titicum kernel. Note that for projects
such as CDNO’s CropStoreDB (https://www.cropstoredb.org/) that use tabular datasets rather than graphrepresentations, a biosample table can simply have columns for biosample identifiers, dietary component measure,
FoodOn product term or PO anatomical term and taxonomy, and any other agricultural context metadata. With6the addition of some column semantics, tabular views can be converted back into appropriate graphrepresentations.
Upcoming CDNO work is focused on a hierarchy of classes for physical and functional attributes and dietaryfunctional roles, as well as nomenclature required to describe variation in analytic measures. This will allow
harmonization of the nutrient measures used for international standards such as the FAO sponsored International
Network of Food Data Systems (INFOODS) [54] system used in many food composition databases, as well as thecommonly used USDA nutrient codes in FoodData Central [55] (where for example selenium is listed in the“Supporting data for CSV Downloads” archive nutrient.csv table with id 317 and a microgram unit).
3.3. ECTO: The Environmental Conditions, Treatments, and Exposures Ontology
ECTO [56], launched in 2016, provides language to describe experimental and environmental factors for awide range of public health and environmental monitoring objectives, including modeling components of humandisease and nutritional health, environmental toxin exposure, and alteration of biological function. It focuses on
documenting precomposed experimental treatments, non-experimental exposures, and environmental conditions
that may impact organisms. For modelling experimental designs, ECTO contains hundreds of “exposure tochemical” terms such as “exposure to chlorpyrifos” (a moderately toxic pesticide that has been banned since 2020in the European Union, and since 2022 in the USA) which can be used to model human and other organism
diseases and phenotypes that arise from exposure, and the underlying metabolic activity at work, as illustrated in
Figure 4. The RO relations “has exposure medium”, “has exposure stimulus”, “has exposure route” and “realized
in response to” all connect processes which summarize a chain of exposure events, for example, exposure to an
instance of an apple which itself has been exposed to chlorpyrifos.
ECTO currently has over 160 food ingestion terms such as “exposure to skim milk via ingestion”, and 17
vitamin and mineral ingestion terms including an “exposure to selenium via ingestion” process. An upcoming
Dead Simple OWL Design Pattern (DOSDP) [57] will integrate exposures to specific diets that refer to terms
found within the Ontology for Nutritional Studies.

Fig. 4: Instance-level ECTO data representation of exposure to chlorpyrifos by way of food-ingestion, including thedisease and phenotype associated with it.

3.4. PESTON: The Pesticide Ontology
PestOn [58], launched in 2022, aims to provide an ontological framework for organizing branded pesticide
product regulatory information. Regulation of pesticides (mostly chemical agents used to protect crops from
disease, pests, and weeds, and improve plant growth) and their reporting requirements and other publiclymandated information is uneven among nations and geopolitical regions, leaving uncertainty about their
responsible use, and challenges in evaluating health and environmental impacts. PestOn was developed byontologizing The Italian Ministry of Health's pesticide register dataset, comprising over 16,000 pesticide products
used over several decades. Pesticide brand names, their active ingredients (including chemical name andconcentration), production company information, pesticide by chemical role (e.g. fungicide, insecticide, herbicide,plant growth regulator, adjuvant, herbicide, etc. product classes linked to ChEBI chemical role where possible),7

type of associated hazards (e.g. dangerous for the environment, flammable, toxic, etc.) and regulatory events (issue
date, expiry, revocation) and derived authorization status are all part of the PestOn model.
More than 99% of pesticide active ingredients were successfully matched against CHeBI ontology, with theremainder either chemicals that the authors then suggested to ChEBI curators, or were organisms like fungi andbacteria which PESTON does not currently model. At launch, PestOn involves 795 active ingredients containedin 16,458 pesticide products and their 532 production companies. PestOn is divided into a core ontology that canbe used for describing pesticides in general, but it also comes with import files which supply an RDF graph of all
the Italian instance data for the pesticide products, companies and regulatory events. The SPARQL querying
language [59] can be used for example to retrieve the current available products in each pesticide role category,as well as a summary of products containing a given active ingredient. Taking the chlorpyrifos example in the
ECTO overview, PestOn has it as an active ingredient in over 190 brand name pesticides offered in the Italianmarket, along with issue and revocation dates, enabling one to determine compliance with the European
chlorpyrifos ban.
PestOn’s initial corpus of Italian regulatory data should be expandable to other jurisdictions although different
regulatory events (besides application / revocation, etc.) may need to be added. PestOn is not yet a member of
OBO, and does not reference foods or crops that are applicable to pesticide application, but it could be useful inresearch linking branded pesticide products to exposure effects as described in ECTO.
3.5. ONS: Ontology for Nutritional Studies
ONS [12], first published in 2018, focuses on vocabulary for modeling nutritional studies, including diet anddietary pattern variations. A central concept in ONS is “diet” (ONS:1000001, having 58 subclasses), a datum
defined as “the sum of food consumed by a person or other organism”. Diet is currently distinguished from“dietary pattern” (ONS:0000094, having 34 subclasses), defined as “the quantity, proportion, variety andcombination of different foods and drinks consumed in meals, and the frequency with which they are habituallyconsumed”. Dietary pattern was intended to represent a dataset typically resulting from assays in the context ofnutritional epidemiology (for example, an ONS “Food Frequency Questionnaire”), containing a specification offoods consumed and, as a result, denoting the type of diet to which a subject has adhered. Curation anddevelopment revolving around the initial diet concept in ONS has greatly benefited from the collaboration with
the Joint Food Ontology Workgroup. Thanks to this interaction, multiple different subclasses of the diet (andrelated dietary pattern) were defined.
Various flavours of diet and related dietary patterns currently have axioms that include or exclude FoodOn
products by way of an RO “eats” relation. As an example, the “vegan diet” (ONS:1000021) and the “vegan dietary
pattern” (ONS:2000021) are axiomatized as eating vegetables and excluding the consumption of animal products;
however, these axioms need to be revised as “eats” can only connect from an organism to a relevant food, rather
than from diet, which is currently a kind of IAO Information Content Entity (which is logically disjoint frommaterial entities like food). Additionally, the distinction between diet and dietary pattern needs to be re-examined.
While diet as a descriptive term (the ONS “descriptive diet” class) details what an organism has actually eaten, it
appears that the remaining diet terms could be considered eating patterns, and thus be consolidated under dietary
pattern.
3.6. PO2: Process and Observation Ontology
PO2 [60] details processing steps, characteristics and sampling regimes of foods during their industrial
manufacturing process, as well as their food formulation (Figure 5). The ontology contains a small core layer of
68 classes dedicated to the generic modeling of both transformation and characterization processes, while domain
specific sub-ontologies specialize the PO2 core model for different projects. PO2 can represent a foodtransformation process described by a set of experimental observations available at different scales and evolving
in time as a production process composed of unit operations. PO2 is based partly on the Sensor, Observation,
Sample, and Actuator (SOSA) ontology [61], but also has BFO, OWL-Time and IAO classes. It has been
implemented in database-driven software that covers dairy, meat, and biorefinery production, to represent theunique characteristics of foods during their manufacturing process. The PO2 team participates in the Food Process
Ontology Workgroup which is helping to build FoodOn’s food transformation process branch.
Future directions for PO2 include the development of a PO2 specialization called TransformON which will
cover various bioresource transformation processes that produce food and biobased products. It includes threecomponent subclasses, two for food and feed taken directly from FoodEx 2, as well as a branch of non-foodsubstances, including organic wastes or residues (e.g. wastewater) and bio-based products. A future objective is
to align the PO2 component branch with FoodOn, and in this way map between FoodEx 2 and FoodOn.
Processing equipment (actuators) and measuring instruments (sensors), as well as branches for analyticalprocedures and measured properties will be mapped to or sourced from OBO ontologies. PO2, available at8

available at https://doi.org/10.15454/XSVVBW, is not registered with OBO as it is tightly integrated with several
other non-OBO ontologies, but it has collaborated on a comparison of it and the OBO process model [41].

Fig. 5: PO2 uses similar classes for both production line actuation and observation.

3.7. FOBI: The Food-Biomarker Ontology
FOBI [62], launched in 2020, is aimed at describing the relationships between a food and its metabolome, thecollection of all metabolites in the body directly derived from the digestion and biotransformation of foods andtheir constituents. These biomarkers are often measured in stool or urine samples. FOBI, currently with a total of
1197 terms, is composed of two interconnected branches: a food branch consisting of over 300 FoodOn raw singleingredient and multi-component foods; and a food intake “Biomarkers” branch of about 968 chemicals (Figure6), many from ChEBI but with some FOBI specific terms. Connections between the two are made with FOBI’s“BiomarkerOf” object property, with 590 connections made. Figure 6 illustrates two biomarkers that can be left
in humans as a result of consuming apple directly, or in some processed form such as a baked apple pie. (Notethat the FOBI paper [62] refers to its own “Food Ontology […] created on the basis of dietary data obtained fromself-reported surveys for dietary assessment […]”, but this references FOBI’s own branch of food items that waslater mainly converted to FoodOn terms).
Various tasks could advance FOBI from an inaugural ontology. There are some lingering inconsistent PURLs(e/g. for Benzodioxoles, http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/fobi.owl#FOBI:050222 should be standardized tohttp://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/FOBI_050222). FoodOn and ChEBI could be reused more: FOBI has apple juice
as a subclass of “apple (whole)” rather than more correctly as a sibling product; ChEBI has a “catechol” class that
could be reused. Remaining FOBI chemical classes should migrate into ChEBI if they are missing from that
resource. FOBI class names are often pluralized, which OBO usually discourages as it conveys an instance of aclass could point to a plurality of a thing rather than a single countable thing. FOBI has a number of classes suchas “Phenylpropanoids and polyketides” which have disjunct subclasses, and which may be desired in a userinterface menu but the question arises whether such umbrella classes are needed within an ontology itself, or
would a hierarchy containing separate (in this case ChEBI) phenylpropanoid and polyketide classes and theirbranches suffice?
FOBI contains some example multi-component foods, like apple pie, which not directly connected tobiomarkers, but which, by itemizing ingredients with a “Contains” (and inverse “IsIngredientOf”) object property,
convey the possibility of recipe-ingredient-biomarker or biomarker-ingredient-recipe deduction, and related
nutritional implications. However, it is rare that a recipe can be defined as a class with an exhaustive list ofingredients, since non-essential ingredient substitution is usually allowed (for example, shortening for butter inapple pie crust). FOBI could convert its multi-component food examples to test-sample instance-data (a particularapple pie’s constituents) and employ FoodOn’s “has ingredient” and “has defining ingredient” object properties.
Alternately FOBI could consider leaving multi-component food definitions to the domain of a recipe database.
There is also the fidelity question of which part of a plant or animal is precisely responsible for a biomarker perhaps it should be axiomatized that only an apple hypanthium is the source of a biomarker residue, then weleave it to a reasoner to infer that ingesting a peeled, cored apple could lead to the biomarker being present. Also,“BiomarkerOf” is a shortcut relation representing a more complex digestion model which would be helpful toelaborate on, so that models could be offered for describing how biomarkers’ concentrations trail off time-wise
after digestion, thus enabling prediction of how much related food may have been consumed.

9

Fig. 6: Example class-level FOBI linkage between FoodOn “apple (whole)” and FOBI BiomarkerOf object properties.

3.8. DO and MONDO Disease Ontologies
The Human Disease Ontology (DO, with term prefix DOID) [63] has 28 “nutrition disease” (DOID:374)
categories devoted to nutritional deficiency, for example “Keshan disease” arising from selenium deficiency, as
well as overnutrition-triggered diseases. DO also includes allergies arising from food product consumption. The
RO object property “has allergic trigger” (RO:0001022) has been used to attach an allergic disease to the class offood that triggers it. Food allergy (positioned under “gastrointestinal allergy”, an “An allergic disease that is
located in the gastrointestinal tract”) currently has 33 categories including fish and shellfish, fruit, milk, wheat
and vegetable subclasses, many with corresponding relations to FoodOn food products that cause them. DO also
supports the Immune Epitope Database (IEDB) [64] database by enabling a selection of DO terms – ones with an“oboInOwl#inSubset DO_IEDB_slim” annotation – to be filtered into a separate file for export, and this includes
the entire food allergy branch.
The Mondo Disease Ontology (MONDO), which seeks to cover and standardize disease vocabulary found ina number of large disease thesauri) has a “nutritional disorder” (MONDO:0005137) term branch containing crossreferences to DO and other ontologies and thesauri, and under which 5 “food-related allergic diseases”, 68
categories of “overnutrition” diseases (mainly obesity variants), and 67 categories of “nutritional deficiency
disease” (including Keshan disease) are listed.
For food-related diseases, symptoms such as obesity and allergic inflammation can be found in the Human
Phenotype Ontology (HP). Although it is problematic in a disease ontology to directly link diseases to symptoms
with object properties (since OWL logic can only express certainty rather than probability that a symptom might
be associated to a disease) this could be accomplished in a more context-sensitive database or knowledge graphof fuzzy logic or probabilistic connections between the two.
3.9. MAxO: The Medical Action Ontology
MAxO [65], launched in 2020, is a broad ontology that provides a structured vocabulary for medical
procedures, interventions, therapies, treatments, or clinical recommendations, including nutritional
recommendations. MAxO was designed to annotate diseases, particularly rare diseases where management of
nutrients is often critical. MAxO provides a lexicon of 77 dietary intake avoidance behaviour terms (Figure 7)

Fig. 7: A small portion of the nutrition intervention hierarchy within MAxO.

10

such as “selenium intake avoidance”, and an “avoided food” object property in the case where FoodOn products
are being avoided. For example if a person has a strong fish odor, and Trimethylaminuria (the increased presenceof trimethylamine in urine) is detected, then a MAxO “broccoli intake avoidance” treatment may be recommended
to reduce trimethylamine abundance [66]. Additionally, over 70 nutritional supplementation process terms areincluded, including “selenium supplementation”, with linkages to directly to ChEBI chemicals as inputs (and in
one case, “multivitamin supplementation” which uses the FoodOn “vitamin supplement”).
In order to capture the relationship between treatments and diseases, the Phenotypic Observation Explication
Tool (POET, https://poet.jax.org/) was developed to establish a relationship between MAxO, HP, and MONDO
terms. It allows researchers to actively participate in annotating diseases in their area of expertise.
3.10. FIDEO: Food Interactions with Drugs Evidence Ontology
FIDEO [67], launched in 2020, and providing over 170 FoodOn food categories, and over 260 ChEBI
chemicals, is used in a database containing annotation and retrieval of scientific articles about food-druginteractions. Other domain-specific food categories such as “vitamin k-rich food product” are locally defined.
While initial efforts were focused on the design of the ontology based on the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) andthe OBO Foundry principles, more recent efforts have resulted in a user-friendly visual interface that allows searchand exploration of interactions [68] and currently focus on the automatic integration of food-drug interactions
from DrugBank (https://go.drugbank.com) and Hedrine (https://hedrine.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr) to FIDEO using
ROBOT’s [35] template command.
3.11. ONE: Ontology for Nutritional Epidemiology
ONE [69] details nutritional epidemiology manuscript and dataset characteristics, including the document
structure of research manuscripts, dietary surveys, and food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs). FBDGs represent
a wealth of accumulated diet knowledge summarized from nutrition studies [70,71], and are important documentsfor policy makers, healthcare workers, educators and ultimately the general public to glean dietary policy andadvice from. ONE brings into ontology form an established set of “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational
Studies in Epidemiology” (STROBE) minimal requirements for the reporting of nutritional epidemiology research[72]. The first version of ONE extends IAO document parts to cover research paper structure, and as welldescription of food surveys which form the underlying datasets for many studies. Abstract, discussion, ethics,
methods, results and supplementary methods specific to dietary studies are defined, as well as quality assessmentclasses of study designs and dietary recall methods (Figure 8). FBDG terms were added into ONE in 2021 tosupport potential applications such as automated analysis of dietary trends, along with a graph database application
for holding semi-automated assessments of nutritional epidemiology manuscripts [73].
ONE curators began development of a Natural Language Processing (NLP) query language interface to enable
plain language retrieval of relevant nutritional studies as encoded in a knowledge graph, as well as dashboard
development to visualize nutritional knowledge contained in research manuscripts and population based
recommendations [74].

Fig. 8: ONE’s hierarchy of dietary survey quality indicators.

11

3.12. HSO: The Health Surveillance Ontology
HSO [75] is a knowledge model for data collection, collation and reporting of animal health, public health andfood safety surveillance systems, including proactive surveillance and reactive investigation methods andobjectives. While detailed surveillance data may not be easily harmonizable and/or shareable due to specificnational agency reporting requirements, a top-down semantic harmonization of reporting elements is still required
to pool summary data for international / multi-agency contexts. After engaging multilaterally about what theessential components of One Health surveillance data are, the HSO curation team developed vocabulary and amodel centred around a planned process “surveillance activity” and related protocols, along with new vocabularyof over 200 classes, 40 object properties, and 20 data properties, for sampling strategies, host and pathogen
taxonomy, specimen device type, and anatomical origin or substance. HSO is an outcome of the One HealthsuRveillance Initiative on harmOnization of data collection and interpretatioN (ORION) project and is currently
interoperable with various catalogues in the European Food and Safety Administration’s (EFSA) Standard Sample
Description. HSO can be naturally paired with the recently OBO-launched Vertebrate Breed Ontology (VBO)[76] of over 16,000 region-specific domestic animal breeds and wild lineages to pinpoint taxa beyond what
NCBITaxon can offer.
Future HSO integration with OBI sample types would be beneficial. There may be opportunity to reduce thenumber of object properties, for example the HSO “Surveillance Activity” has “has surveillance actions” object
properties which allow a “surveillance methods specification” – a diagnostic/reporting/sampling design/specimen
collection protocol - in their range. Instead, in a Surveillance Activity’s plan specification could directly link tothese protocols via “has part” without losing any reasoning or query power.
4. Discussion
Information is accruing within OBO ontologies as each adds term axioms that reference other terms inside oroutside its own ontology. The wealth of this federated activity exists precisely because these ontologies are notconstrained by the narrower mandate of any particular curation organization. Figure 9 shows an example of how
FoodOn, DO and NCBITaxon ontology terms (including their axioms) combine without any extra work to express
the fact that parsley, dill and celery allergies each arise from different food products which themselves derivefrom species contained within the same Tribe-level taxonomic hierarchy. Even from this short relationship chain,
one could hypothesize potential allergies for consumers who are allergic to any one of these products. One canimagine similar hypotheses being generated about foods that have been produced or processed with similar classesof exogenous chemicals.
Our collective vision is to bridge the span of food-related activity - from agriculture and ecosystem context toharvest, distribution, consumption and related health effect analytics – with a set of entities and relationships
between them, that would add up to an entire history or provenance trail of products. Accomplishing this however,requires extra multi-disciplinary thoughtfulness and work on the part of ontology curation teams, to in effectinvent the language that makes this possible. This is an evolving, iterative process that has technical andmultilateral challenges.
For example, AgrO connects various measurement protocols for crop area, row length, mulch thickness andcolor, well depth, etc. by a “measurement method of” object property to the characteristic they capture. To honor
the OBO principle that RO should house most relationships, AgrO has initiated a request to add “measurement

Fig. 9: An allergy-food product-taxonomy pattern arising from the relations existing across 3 ontologies.

12

method of” to RO, with a proposed definition now under critique. RO has in turn asked OBI (because it leads
planned process model relationship work) for recommendations about the definition and label of this property.
Most of this dialogue is offered on a volunteer basis, with at best informal pro-bono offers of time. This exposes
an education and communication problem: interoperability requires the expense of liaising between people andorganizations about term definitions, and object and data property design patterns. A prerequisite to this work is
to have curators understand the same paradigm for appropriate modelling of relations beyond a class-subclasshierarchy. Training programs are emerging, for example the OBOOK (https://oboacademy.github.io/obook/), toaddress this.
In general, more work needs to be done between food-related ontology curators to establish design patterns(as exemplified by nanopublications [77]) that congregate into larger knowledge graphs about food. By connecting
biosamples, their context and bioactive constituents, and exposures, we could more easily see how over onethousand CDNO dietary chemicals (including selenium) leave their mark on organism and environmental health.
This will greatly facilitate dataset comparison and analysis within a clinical, veterinarian, or agricultural collection
context, and would facilitate a cross-domain standard for human, animal, plant, or environmental biosample
description, including its collection context, handling provenance, and analysis.
The Joint Food Ontology Workgroup has fostered teamwork to solve a variety of these problems.
Longstanding issues about the presentation of vitamins as chemicals or as chemical roles have been resolved in
2021 with the help of some JFOW members and ChEBI; as well JFOW discussion has clarified the domain
coverage and scope between ONE and ONS. Many modeling problems remain – standardizing the modeling ofdatasets holding biosamples for example, to detail time of observation and other contextual data. Ideally JFOW
work would be supported by a full-time liaison to oversee modelling synchronization among the group agency’s
projects.
Some OBO ontologies could be better integrated with FoodOn, Plant Ontology, ChEBI or NCBITaxon term
references. For example DRON “cucumber allergenic extract” has no axiom connecting to cucumber; MONDO’s
Keshan disease doesn’t connect to ChEBI selenium; PECO’s “selenium nutrient exposure” treatment could use
an axiom indicating it is about, or has as a process input, selenium. FIDEO and FOBI could shift their native foodterms into FoodOn. Some of the newer ontology entrants such as ONS launched with the manual editing a single
term file, and now a few years later have to face the problem of catching up to changes in third party ontology
content – namely, hierarchy changes. However, even for ontologies with term import and build systems, term
curation coordination becomes more difficult the moment others are involved to distribute the technical load. Thisshows up for example in FoodOn situations where a new food term added to a ROBOT template table involves
taxon or anatomy terms, referenced by name, that need to be imported in upstream OntoFox import files first
before their names can even be recognized by the ROBOT tools, leading to a multi-stage compilation process.
This error-prone complexity could be eliminated by the development of an elegant multi-user, multi-ontology andimport file curation platform.
A larger challenge is to see how OBO might evolve to support domains that are outside of the life sciences.
OBO would seem to have a natural counterpart in the Industrial Ontology Foundation (IOF), launched in 2016,
but IOF’s recently launched core ontology [78,79] does not yet contain subdomains to trade terms with. ENVO’s“manufactured product” remains the tentative home for a large influx of food industry and other equipment usefulfor laboratory and food process modelling, including over 350 food related equipment terms via the Institute forFood Safety at Cornell University.
OBO ontologies and Simple Knowledge Organization System [80] or basic Resource Definition Framework[81] based vocabularies in business operations or strategy and sustainability policy sectors can potentially add
value together in a knowledge graph. The GS1 Global Product Classification for Food/Beverage/Tobacco [82]could be linked to OBO food related ontologies for describing nutrients, allergens, ingredients and serving sizes
for example. This is critical for supporting traceability requirements of many blockchain projects underdevelopment since GS1 standardized vocabulary is pervasive in business. On the horizon, the European Food and
Safety Administration will be creating a pan-European food composition database presumably supported by the
EFSA FoodEx2 vocabulary thesaurus, and this would benefit from integration with or mapping to OBO and otherontology-based knowledge.
5. Conclusion
The development of the OBO food related ontologies is occurring in a semi-autonomous parallel fashion, withinterconnectivity issues arising on a weekly basis, and with the need to fund and train new talent to help curate
the growing volume of what is a catch-up exercise to standardize and digitize vocabulary being used in research,
policy and industry across the food spectrum. Taken together, the above work represents an explosion ofknowledge and data harmonization about food systems, and is emerging as the language for a federated databasemodel. The successful reuse of terms is demonstrated, and the methodology of inter-agency curation points the13

way to faster de-facto standardization of vocabulary. The semantic web way of thinking about vocabulary throughOWL ontologies that easily generalize and specialize about food related data in the world still needs development
work, but is proving to be a success in managing the complexity of life science knowledge, and a promising modelfor describing activity in health and sustainability policy and business domains as well.
6. Acknowledgements
This work is primarily supported by the USDA Non-Assistance Cooperative Agreement 58-8040-8-014-F and
Genome Canada Grant 286GET to W. Hsiao, and NSF Awards OAC--2112606. Intelligent cyberinfrastructurewith computational learning in the environment (ICICLE) AI institute, and CNS 1737573; SCC-RCN: Developing
an Informational Infrastructure for Building Smart Regional Foodsheds.
7. References[1] B. Smith, M. Ashburner, C. Rosse, J. Bard, W. Bug, W. Ceusters, L.J. Goldberg, K. Eilbeck, A.
Ireland, C.J. Mungall, OBI Consortium, N. Leontis, P. Rocca-Serra, A. Ruttenberg, S.-A.
Sansone, R.H. Scheuermann, N. Shah, P.L. Whetzel, S. Lewis, The OBO Foundry: coordinatedevolution of ontologies to support biomedical data integration, Nat. Biotechnol. 25 (2007) 1251–
1255. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1346.
[2] A. Zeb, J.-P. Soininen, N. Sozer, Data harmonisation as a key to enable digitalisation of the foodsector: A review, Food Bioprod. Process. 127 (2021) 360–370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2021.02.005.
[3] D.M. Dooley, E.J. Griffiths, G.S. Gosal, P.L. Buttigieg, R. Hoehndorf, M.C. Lange, L.M.
Schriml, F.S.L. Brinkman, W.W.L. Hsiao, FoodOn: a harmonized food ontology to increase
global food traceability, quality control and data integration, NPJ Sci Food. 2 (2018) 23.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-018-0032-6.
[4] M.C. Lange, D.G. Lemay, J.B. German, A multi-ontology framework to guide agriculture andfood towards diet and health, J. Sci. Food Agric. 87 (2007) 1427–1434.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2832.
[5] J.D. Ireland, A. Møller, LanguaL food description: a learning process, Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 64 Suppl
3 (2010) S44-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2010.209.
[6] P.L. Buttigieg, N. Morrison, B. Smith, C.J. Mungall, S.E. Lewis, ENVO Consortium, The
environment ontology: contextualising biological and biomedical entities, J. Biomed. Semantics.
4 (2013) 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-4-43.
[7] P. de Matos, R. Alcántara, A. Dekker, M. Ennis, J. Hastings, K. Haug, I. Spiteri, S. Turner, C.
Steinbeck, Chemical Entities of Biological Interest: an update, Nucleic Acids Res. 38 (2010)
D249-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp886.
[8] R.L. Walls, L. Cooper, J. Elser, M.A. Gandolfo, C.J. Mungall, B. Smith, D.W. Stevenson, P.
Jaiswal, The Plant Ontology facilitates comparisons of plant development stages across species,
Front. Plant Sci. 10 (2019) 631. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00631.
[9] C.J. Mungall, C. Torniai, G.V. Gkoutos, S.E. Lewis, M.A. Haendel, Uberon, an integrative multispecies anatomy ontology, Genome Biol. 13 (2012) R5. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2012-13-1-r5.
[10] S. Federhen, The NCBI taxonomy database, Nucleic Acids Res. 40 (2012) D136-43.
https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr1178.
[11] R. Azman Halimi, B.J. Barkla, L. Andrés-Hernandéz, S. Mayes, G.J. King, Bridging the foodsecurity gap: an information-led approach to connect dietary nutrition, food composition and crop
production, J. Sci. Food Agric. 100 (2020) 1495–1504. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10157.
[12] F. Vitali, R. Lombardo, D. Rivero, F. Mattivi, P. Franceschi, A. Bordoni, A. Trimigno, F.
Capozzi, G. Felici, F. Taglino, F. Miglietta, N. De Cock, C. Lachat, B. De Baets, G. De Tré, M.
Pinart, K. Nimptsch, T. Pischon, J. Bouwman, D. Cavalieri, ENPADASI consortium, ONS: an
ontology for a standardized description of interventions and observational studies in nutrition,
Genes Nutr. 13 (2018) 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12263-018-0601-y.
[13] IAO: information artifact ontology, Github, n.d. https://github.com/information-artifactontology/IAO (accessed November 2, 2022).

14

[14] A. Bandrowski, R. Brinkman, M. Brochhausen, M.H. Brush, B. Bug, M.C. Chibucos, K. Clancy,
M. Courtot, D. Derom, M. Dumontier, L. Fan, J. Fostel, G. Fragoso, F. Gibson, A. GonzalezBeltran, M.A. Haendel, Y. He, M. Heiskanen, T. Hernandez-Boussard, M. Jensen, Y. Lin, A.L.
Lister, P. Lord, J. Malone, E. Manduchi, M. McGee, N. Morrison, J.A. Overton, H. Parkinson, B.
Peters, P. Rocca-Serra, A. Ruttenberg, S.-A. Sansone, R.H. Scheuermann, D. Schober, B. Smith,
L.N. Soldatova, C.J. Stoeckert Jr, C.F. Taylor, C. Torniai, J.A. Turner, R. Vita, P.L. Whetzel, J.
Zheng, The Ontology for Biomedical Investigations, PLoS One. 11 (2016) e0154556.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154556.
[15] obo-relations: RO is an ontology of relations for use with biological ontologies, Github, n.d.
https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations (accessed March 5, 2022).
[16] C. Aubert, P.L. Buttigieg, M.A. Laporte, M. Devare, E. Arnaud, CGIAR Agronomy Ontology,
CGIAR Agronomy Ontology. (2017). https://github.com/AgriculturalSemantics/agro (accessed
October 17, 2017).
[17] S. Haussmann, O. Seneviratne, Y. Chen, Y. Ne’eman, J. Codella, C.-H. Chen, D.L. McGuinness,
M.J. Zaki, FoodKG: A Semantics-Driven Knowledge Graph for Food Recommendation, Lecture
Notes in Computer Science. (2019) 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30796-7_10.
[18] USDA national nutrient database for standard reference, legacy release, (n.d.).
https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/usda-national-nutrient-database-standard-reference-legacyrelease (accessed November 3, 2022).
[19] Whole genome sequencing (WGS) program, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.).
https://www.fda.gov/food/science-research-food/whole-genome-sequencing-wgs-program(accessed October 25, 2022).
[20] Standardizing the isolation source metadata for the genomic epidemiolo, FDA. (2021).
https://www.fda.gov/science-research/fda-science-forum/standardizing-isolation-source-metadatagenomic-epidemiology-foodborne-pathogens-using-lexmapr (accessed October 25, 2022).
[21] G. Gosal, E. Griffiths, D. Dooley, I. Gill, D. Fornika, H. Tate, M. Sanchez, R. Timme, W. Hsiao,
LexMapr: a rule-based text mining tool for ontology-driven harmonization of short biomedical
specimen descriptions, F1000Research. 8 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.7490/F1000RESEARCH.1117323.1.
[22] C.J. Grim, A.M. Windsor, B. Kocurek, S.R. Leonard, T.K.S. Richter, G. Gopinath, M. Balkey, P.
Ramachandran, A. Ottesen, K. Jarvis, R. Timme, Development of a MIxS (Minimum Information
about any (x) Sequence) Food Environmental Metadata Standard, in: 2020.
https://bit.ly/MIxS_Food_Dev (accessed June 22, 2021).
[23] BioSample attributes, (n.d.). https://submit.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/biosample/template/?organismorganism_name=&organism-taxonomy_id=&package0=OneHealthEnteric.1.0&action=definition (accessed May 10, 2023).
[24] J. Feng, D. Daeschel, D. Dooley, E. Griffiths, M. Allard, R. Timme, Y. Chen, A.B. Snyder, A
schema for digitized surface swab site metadata in open-source DNA sequence databases,
MSystems. 8 (2023) e0128422. https://doi.org/10.1128/msystems.01284-22.
[25] Avma, One Health: A new professional imperative, American Veterinary Medical Association
Schaumburg, IL, 2008. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/onehealth_final.pdf.
[26] F.C. Dórea, F. Vial, K. Hammar, A. Lindberg, P. Lambrix, E. Blomqvist, C.W. Revie, Drivers forthe development of an animal health surveillance ontology (AHSO), Prev. Vet. Med. 166 (2019)39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.03.002.
[27] M.A. Musen, Protégé Team, The protégé project, AI Matters. 1 (2015) 4–12.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2757001.2757003.
[28] OWL - semantic web standards, (n.d.). https://www.w3.org/OWL/ (accessed November 1, 2022).
[29] OBO Principles, OBO Foundry. (n.d.). http://www.obofoundry.org/principles/fp-000summary.html (accessed June 24, 2021).
[30] Y. He, Z. Xiang, J. Zheng, Y. Lin, J.A. Overton, E. Ong, The eXtensible ontology development(XOD) principles and tool implementation to support ontology interoperability, J. Biomed.
Semantics. 9 (2018) 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-017-0169-2.
[31] Z. Xiang, M. Courtot, R.R. Brinkman, A. Ruttenberg, Y. He, OntoFox: web-based support for
ontology reuse, BMC Res. Notes. 3 (2010) 175. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-3-175.

15

[32] J.A. Overton, M. Cuffaro, C.J. Mungall, The OBO Foundry Operations Committee Technical
Working Groupc, String of PURLs – frugal migration and maintenance of persistent identifiers,
Data Sci. 3 (2020) 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3233/ds-190022.
[33] Z. Xiang, C. Mungall, A. Ruttenberg, Y. He, Ontobee: A linked data server and browser for
ontology terms, in: ICBO, 2011.
https://www.academia.edu/download/39270744/0deec5393d9ae86155000000.pdf.
[34] FAIR principles, GO FAIR. (2017). https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/ (accessed November
3, 2022).
[35] R.C. Jackson, J.P. Balhoff, E. Douglass, N.L. Harris, C.J. Mungall, J.A. Overton, ROBOT: A
Tool for Automating Ontology Workflows, BMC Bioinformatics. 20 (2019) 407.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-019-3002-3.
[36] R. Arp, B. Smith, A.D. Spear, Building Ontologies with Basic Formal Ontology, MIT Press,2015. https://market.android.com/details?id=book-AUxQCgAAQBAJ.
[37] Core ontology for biology and biomedicine, (n.d.). https://obofoundry.org/COB/ (accessed
October 15, 2022).
[38] N. Matentzoglu, D. Goutte-Gattat, S.Z.K. Tan, J.P. Balhoff, S. Carbon, A.R. Caron, W.D.
Duncan, J.E. Flack, M. Haendel, N.L. Harris, W.R. Hogan, C.T. Hoyt, R.C. Jackson, H. Kim, H.
Kir, M. Larralde, J.A. McMurry, J.A. Overton, B. Peters, C. Pilgrim, R. Stefancsik, S.M. Robb, S.
Toro, N.A. Vasilevsky, R. Walls, C.J. Mungall, D. Osumi-Sutherland, Ontology Development
Kit: a toolkit for building, maintaining and standardizing biomedical ontologies, Database(Oxford). 2022 (2022) baac087. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baac087.
[39] R.C. Jackson, N. Matentzoglu, J.A. Overton, R. Vita, J.P. Balhoff, P.L. Buttigieg, S. Carbon, M.
Courtot, A.D. Diehl, D. Dooley, W. Duncan, N.L. Harris, M.A. Haendel, S.E. Lewis, D.A. Natale,
D. Osumi-Sutherland, A. Ruttenberg, L.M. Schriml, B. Smith, C.J. Stoeckert, N.A. Vasilevsky,
R.L. Walls, J. Zheng, C.J. Mungall, B. Peters, OBO Foundry in 2021: Operationalizing Open
Data Principles to Evaluate Ontologies, BioRxiv. (2021) 2021.06.01.446587.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.01.446587.
[40] JFOW, Joint Food Ontology Workgroup. (n.d.). https://github.com/FoodOntology/joint-foodontology-wg (accessed June 24, 2021).
[41] D. Dooley, M. Weber, L. Ibanescu, M. Lange, L. Chan, L. Soldatova, C. Yang, R. Warren, C.
Shimizu, H.K. McGinty, W. Hsiao, Food process ontology requirements, Semant. Web. Preprint(2022) 1–32. https://doi.org/10.3233/sw-223096.
[42] R. Stoffaneller, N.L. Morse, A review of dietary selenium intake and selenium status in Europe
and the Middle East, Nutrients. 7 (2015) 1494–1537. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu7031494.
[43] Y. Shi, W. Yang, X. Tang, Q. Yan, X. Cai, F. Wu, Keshan disease: A potentially fatal endemic
cardiomyopathy in remote mountains of China, Front. Pediatr. 9 (2021) 576916.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.576916.
[44] J.K. MacFarquhar, D.L. Broussard, P. Melstrom, R. Hutchinson, A. Wolkin, C. Martin, R.F.
Burk, J.R. Dunn, A.L. Green, R. Hammond, W. Schaffner, T.F. Jones, Acute selenium toxicity
associated with a dietary supplement, Arch. Intern. Med. 170 (2010) 256–261.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.495.
[45] J. Köhrle, Selenium and the thyroid, Curr. Opin. Endocrinol. Diabetes Obes. 22 (2015) 392–401.
https://doi.org/10.1097/MED.0000000000000190.
[46] L. Cooper, M.-A. Laporte, J. Elser, V.C. Blake, T.Z. Sen, C. Mungall, E. Arnaud, The Plant Trait
Ontology links wheat traits for crop improvement and genomics, (n.d.). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol2807/abstractT.pdf (accessed October 29, 2022).
[47] R. Shrestha, L. Matteis, M. Skofic, A. Portugal, G. McLaren, G. Hyman, E. Arnaud, Bridging thephenotypic and genetic data useful for integrated breeding through a data annotation using the
Crop Ontology developed by the crop communities of practice, Front. Physiol. 3 (2012) 326.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2012.00326.
[48] L. Cooper, A. Meier, M.-A. Laporte, J.L. Elser, C. Mungall, B.T. Sinn, D. Cavaliere, S. Carbon,
N.A. Dunn, B. Smith, B. Qu, J. Preece, E. Zhang, S. Todorovic, G. Gkoutos, J.H. Doonan, D.W.
Stevenson, E. Arnaud, P. Jaiswal, The Planteome database: an integrated resource for reference
ontologies, plant genomics and phenomics, Nucleic Acids Res. 46 (2018) D1168–D1180.
https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx1152.

16

[49] G.V. Gkoutos, P.N. Schofield, R. Hoehndorf, The anatomy of phenotype ontologies: principles,
properties and applications, Brief. Bioinform. 19 (2018) 1008–1021.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx035.
[50] M. Devare, C. Aubert, O.E. Benites Alfaro, I.O. Perez Masias, M.-A. Laporte, AgroFIMS: A tool
to enable digital collection of standards-compliant FAIR data, Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.726646.
[51] P. Yilmaz, R. Kottmann, D. Field, R. Knight, J.R. Cole, L. Amaral-Zettler, J.A. Gilbert, I. KarschMizrachi, A. Johnston, G. Cochrane, R. Vaughan, C. Hunter, J. Park, N. Morrison, P. RoccaSerra, P. Sterk, M. Arumugam, M. Bailey, L. Baumgartner, B.W. Birren, M.J. Blaser, V. Bonazzi,
T. Booth, P. Bork, F.D. Bushman, P.L. Buttigieg, P.S.G. Chain, E. Charlson, E.K. Costello, H.
Huot-Creasy, P. Dawyndt, T. DeSantis, N. Fierer, J.A. Fuhrman, Rachel E Gallery, D. Gevers,
R.A. Gibbs, I.S. Gil, A. Gonzalez, J.I. Gordon, R. Guralnick, W. Hankeln, S. Highlander, P.
Hugenholtz, J. Jansson, A.L. Kau, S.T. Kelley, J. Kennedy, D. Knights, O. Koren, J. Kuczynski,
N. Kyrpides, R. Larsen, C.L. Lauber, T. Legg, R.E. Ley, C.A. Lozupone, W. Ludwig, D. Lyons,
E. Maguire, B.A. Methé, F. Meyer, B. Muegge, S. Nakielny, K.E. Nelson, D. Nemergut, J.D.
Neufeld, L.K. Newbold, A.E. Oliver, N.R. Pace, G. Palanisamy, J. Peplies, J. Petrosino, L.
Proctor, E. Pruesse, C. Quast, J. Raes, S. Ratnasingham, J. Ravel, D.A. Relman, S. AssuntaSansone, P.D. Schloss, L. Schriml, R. Sinha, M.I. Smith, E. Sodergren, A. Spor, J. Stombaugh,
J.M. Tiedje, D.V. Ward, G.M. Weinstock, D. Wendel, O. White, A. Whiteley, A. Wilke, J.R.
Wortman, T. Yatsunenko, F.O. Glöckner, Minimum information about a marker gene sequence(MIMARKS) and minimum information about any (x) sequence (MIxS) specifications, Nat.
Biotechnol. 29 (2011) 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1823.
[52] Class: Soil, (n.d.). https://genomicsstandardsconsortium.github.io/mixs/Soil/ (accessed October28, 2022).
[53] L. Andrés-Hernández, K. Blumberg, R.L. Walls, D. Dooley, R. Mauleon, M. Lange, M. Weber,
L. Chan, A. Malik, A. Møller, J. Ireland, L. Segovia, X. Zhang, B. Burton-Freeman, P. Magelli,
A. Schriever, S.M. Forester, L. Liu, G.J. King, Establishing a common nutritional vocabulary from food production to diet, Front. Nutr. 9 (2022) 928837.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.928837.
[54] S.P. Murphy, U.R. Charrondiere, B. Burlingame, Thirty years of progress in harmonizing andcompiling food data as a result of the establishment of INFOODS, Food Chem. 193 (2016) 2–5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.11.097.
[55] FoodData central, (n.d.). https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/download-datasets.html (accessed November 2,2022).
[56] A.E. Thessen, C.J. Grondin, R.D. Kulkarni, S. Brander, L. Truong, N.A. Vasilevsky, T.J.
Callahan, L.E. Chan, B. Westra, M. Willis, S.E. Rothenberg, A.M. Jarabek, L. Burgoon, S.A.
Korrick, M.A. Haendel, Community Approaches for Integrating Environmental Exposures into
Human Models of Disease, Environ. Health Perspect. 128 (2020) 125002.
https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7215.
[57] D. Osumi-Sutherland, M. Courtot, J.P. Balhoff, C. Mungall, Dead simple OWL design patterns, J.
Biomed. Semantics. 8 (2017) 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-017-0126-0.
[58] M. Medici, D. Dooley, M. Canavari, PestOn: An ontology to make pesticides information easily
accessible and interoperable, Sustainability. 14 (2022) 6673. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116673.
[59] SPARQL 1.1 query language, (n.d.). https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/ (accessed
November 4, 2022).
[60] L. Ibanescu, J. Dibie, S. Dervaux, E. Guichard, J. Raad, $PO^2$- A Process and Observation
Ontology in Food Science. Application to Dairy Gels, in: Metadata and Semantics Research,
Springer International Publishing, 2016: pp. 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-491578_13.
[61] K. Janowicz, A. Haller, S.J.D. Cox, D. Le Phuoc, M. Lefrançois, SOSA: A lightweight ontology
for sensors, observations, samples, and actuators, Journal of Web Semantics. 56 (2019) 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2018.06.003.
[62] P. Castellano-Escuder, R. González-Domínguez, D.S. Wishart, C. Andrés-Lacueva, A. SánchezPla, FOBI: an ontology to represent food intake data and associate it with metabolomic data,
Database . 2020 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/databa/baaa033.

17

[63] L.M. Schriml, E. Mitraka, J. Munro, B. Tauber, M. Schor, L. Nickle, V. Felix, L. Jeng, C. Bearer,
R. Lichenstein, K. Bisordi, N. Campion, B. Hyman, D. Kurland, C.P. Oates, S. Kibbey, P.
Sreekumar, C. Le, M. Giglio, C. Greene, Human Disease Ontology 2018 update: classification,
content and workflow expansion, Nucleic Acids Res. (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1032.
[64] R. Vita, S. Mahajan, J.A. Overton, S.K. Dhanda, S. Martini, J.R. Cantrell, D.K. Wheeler, A. Sette,
B. Peters, The Immune Epitope Database (IEDB): 2018 update, Nucleic Acids Res. 47 (2019)
D339–D343. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1006.
[65] MAxO, Medical Action Ontology (MAxO). (n.d.). https://github.com/monarch-initiative/MAxO(accessed June 24, 2021).
[66] I.R. Phillips, E.A. Shephard, Primary Trimethylaminuria, (1993).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20301282/ (accessed October 31, 2022).
[67] G. Bordea, J. Nikiema, R. Griffier, T. Hamon, F. Mougin, FIDEO: Food Interactions with Drugs
Evidence Ontology, in: 11th International Conference on Biomedical Ontologies, 2020.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03185166/.
[68] F. Lalanne, P. Bedouch, C. Simonnet, V. Depras, G. Bordea, R. Bourqui, T. Hamon, F. Thiessard,
F. Mougin, Visualizing Food-Drug Interactions in the Thériaque Database, Stud. Health Technol.
Inform. 281 (2021) 253–257. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI210159.
[69] C. Yang, H. Ambayo, B.D. Baets, P. Kolsteren, N. Thanintorn, D. Hawwash, J. Bouwman, A.
Bronselaer, F. Pattyn, C. Lachat, An Ontology to Standardize Research Output of Nutritional
Epidemiology: From Paper-Based Standards to Linked Content, Nutrients. 11 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11061300.
[70] N. Teicholz, The scientific report guiding the US dietary guidelines: is it scientific?, BMJ. 351(2015) h4962. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4962.
[71] C. Montagnese, L. Santarpia, M. Buonifacio, A. Nardelli, A.R. Caldara, E. Silvestri, F. Contaldo,
F. Pasanisi, European food-based dietary guidelines: a comparison and update, Nutrition. 31(2015) 908–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2015.01.002.
[72] C. Lachat, D. Hawwash, M.C. Ocké, C. Berg, E. Forsum, A. Hörnell, C. Larsson, E. Sonestedt, E.
Wirfält, A. Åkesson, P. Kolsteren, G. Byrnes, W. De Keyzer, J. Van Camp, J.E. Cade, N. Slimani,
M. Cevallos, M. Egger, I. Huybrechts, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in
Epidemiology—Nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut): An Extension of the STROBE
Statement, PLOS Medicine. 13 (2016) e1002036. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002036.
[73] C. Yang, D. Hawwash, B. De Baets, J. Bouwman, C. Lachat, Perspective: Towards AutomatedTracking of Content and Evidence Appraisal of Nutrition Research, Adv. Nutr. 11 (2020) 1079–
1088. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmaa057.
[74] C. Yang, Nutritional-epidemiologic-ontologies: machine-readable nutritional epidemiologic(meta-)data, Github, n.d. https://github.com/cyang0128/Nutritional-epidemiologic-ontologies(accessed November 4, 2022).
[75] M. Filter, T. Buschhardt, F. Dórea, E. Lopez de Abechuco, T. Günther, E.M. Sundermann, J.
Gethmann, J. Dups-Bergmann, K. Lagesen, J. Ellis-Iversen, One Health Surveillance Codex:
promoting the adoption of One Health solutions within and across European countries, One
Health. 12 (2021) 100233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100233.
[76] Vertebrate breed ontology, (n.d.). https://monarch-initiative.github.io/vertebrate-breed-ontology/(accessed November 4, 2022).
[77] E. Mina, M. Thompson, R. Kaliyaperumal, J. Zhao, van E. der Horst, Z. Tatum, K.M. Hettne,
E.A. Schultes, B. Mons, M. Roos, Nanopublications for exposing experimental data in the lifesciences: a Huntington’s Disease case study, J. Biomed. Semantics. 6 (2015) 5.
https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-6-5.
[78] M. Drobnjakovic, F. Ameri, C. Will, B. Smith, A. Jones, The Industrial Ontologies Foundry (IOF)
Core ontology, (n.d.). https://philarchive.org/archive/DROTIO-2 (accessed November 2, 2022).
[79] Ontology, Github, n.d. https://github.com/iofoundry/ontology (accessed November 8, 2022).
[80] SKOS Simple Knowledge Organization System - home page, (n.d.).
https://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos (accessed May 9, 2023).
[81] RDF 1.1 concepts and abstract syntax, (n.d.). https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/ (accessed
May 9, 2023).

18

[82] GS1 Food, GS1 Global Product Classification for Food/Beverage/Tobacco. (2018).
https://www.gs1.org/voc/FoodBeverageTobaccoProduct (accessed June 25, 2021).

19

Appendix 1
Abbreviations
Acronym

AgrO
BFO
CDNO
CFSAN
ChEBI
CO
COB
DO
ECTO
ENVO
PO
PTFI
FAIR
FBDG
FCD
FDA
FDC
FOBI
FoodEx 2
FoodKG
FoodOnGenomeTrakr
GSC
HP
IAO
JFOW
LanguaLMIREOT

Resource
Agronomy Ontology
Basic Formal Ontology
Compositional Dietary Nutrition Ontology
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Chemical Entities of Biological Interest
Crop Ontology
Core Ontology for Biology and Biomedicine
Disease Ontology
Environmental conditions, treatments andexposures ontology
Environment Ontology
Plant Ontology
Periodic Table of Food Initiative
FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data
management and stewardship
Food-based dietary guideline
Food composition database
Food and Drug Administration
FoodData Central website
Food-Biomarker Ontology
The food classification and description system
A Semantics-Driven Knowledge Graph for Food
Recommendation
Food Ontology
GenomeTrakr NetworkONS
OWL-Time
PATO
PECO

Genomic Standards Consortium
Human Phenotype Ontology
Information Artifact Ontology
Joint Food Ontology Workgroup
Langua aLimentaria
Minimum Information to Reference an External
Ontology Term
GSC Minimum Information about any Sequence
Mondo Disease Ontology
National Center for Biotechnology Information
Taxon Ontology
New term request
Ontology for Biomedical Investigations
Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology
Foundry
Ontology for Nutritional Studies
Time Ontology
Phenotype And Trait Ontology
Plant Experimental Conditions Ontology

PestOn
PO2
PURL
RDF
RO
TO
UBERON
USDA
VBO
WikiFCD

Pesticide Ontology
Process and Observation Ontology
Permanent Uniform Resource Locator
Resource Description Framework
Relation Ontology
Plant Trait Ontology
Multi-species anatomy ontology
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Vertebrate Breed Ontology
Wikidata Food Composition Data

MIxS
MONDO
NCBITaxon
NTR
OBI
OBO

URL
https://github.com/AgriculturalSemantics/agro
http://ifomis.org/bfo
https://cdno.info
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-organization/center-foodsafety-and-applied-nutrition-cfsan
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi
https://cropontology.org
https://obofoundry.org/COB
https://disease-ontology.org
https://github.com/EnvironmentOntology/environmental-exposureontology
http://environmentontology.org
https://wiki.plantontology.org
https://foodperiodictable.org
https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles

https://www.fda.gov
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov
https://github.com/pcastellanoescuder/FoodBiomarkerOntology
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/data/data-standardisation
https://foodkg.github.io
https://foodon.org
https://www.fda.gov/food/whole-genome-sequencing-wgsprogram/genometrakr-networkhttps://www.gensc.org
https://hpo.jax.org/app/https://github.com/information-artifact-ontology/IAO
https://github.com/FoodOntology/joint-food-ontology-wg
https://www.langual.org
https://doi.org/10.1038/npre.2009.3576.1
https://www.gensc.org/pages/standards-intro.html
https://mondo.monarchinitiative.org
https://github.com/obophenotype/ncbitaxon

http://obi-ontology.org
https://obofoundry.org
https://github.com/enpadasi/Ontology-for-Nutritional-Studies
https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-time
https://github.com/pato-ontology/pato
https://github.com/Planteome/plant-experimental-conditionsontology
https://github.com/marco-medici/peston
https://doi.org/10.15454/XSVVBW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_uniform_resource_locator
https://www.w3.org/RDF
https://oborel.github.io
https://github.com/Planteome/plant-trait-ontology
http://obophenotype.github.io/uberonhttps://www.usda.gov
https://github.com/monarch-initiative/vertebrate-breed-ontology
https://wikifcd.wiki.opencura.com

20