Follow-up rename for label consistency after the upper-level refactor (#602, #603). The refactor renamed the upper level from "quality" to "characteristic" (e.g. physical object characteristic, process characteristic), but one family kept the old "quality" wording in its labels and I want to bring it in line.
The terms are: decreased process quality (PATO:0002302), increased process quality (PATO:0002304), decreased object quality (PATO:0002303), and increased object quality (PATO:0002305). Per Sue Bello's note from 2026-05-15 these must NOT be obsoleted — it is explicitly fine to rename them to use "characteristic". I left the labels untouched in #603 on purpose to keep that PR focused on the upper-level reorg; this tracker is here so we don't lose the rename.
Do the rename once the broader has_modifier migration lands, so the naming stays consistent across the whole upper level: "decreased process quality" -> "decreased process characteristic", "increased process quality" -> "increased process characteristic", "decreased object quality" -> "decreased object characteristic", "increased object quality" -> "increased object characteristic". Keep each old label as an exact synonym.
Examples
- PATO:0002302 "decreased process quality" -> "decreased process characteristic" (old label as exact synonym)
- PATO:0002304 "increased process quality" -> "increased process characteristic" (old label as exact synonym)
- PATO:0002303 "decreased object quality" -> "decreased object characteristic" (old label as exact synonym)
- PATO:0002305 "increased object quality" -> "increased object characteristic" (old label as exact synonym)
Related
Follow-up rename for label consistency after the upper-level refactor (#602, #603). The refactor renamed the upper level from "quality" to "characteristic" (e.g. physical object characteristic, process characteristic), but one family kept the old "quality" wording in its labels and I want to bring it in line.
The terms are: decreased process quality (PATO:0002302), increased process quality (PATO:0002304), decreased object quality (PATO:0002303), and increased object quality (PATO:0002305). Per Sue Bello's note from 2026-05-15 these must NOT be obsoleted — it is explicitly fine to rename them to use "characteristic". I left the labels untouched in #603 on purpose to keep that PR focused on the upper-level reorg; this tracker is here so we don't lose the rename.
Do the rename once the broader has_modifier migration lands, so the naming stays consistent across the whole upper level: "decreased process quality" -> "decreased process characteristic", "increased process quality" -> "increased process characteristic", "decreased object quality" -> "decreased object characteristic", "increased object quality" -> "increased object characteristic". Keep each old label as an exact synonym.
Examples
Related