Consider moving BCO relations to RO

[ramonawalls]

ROBOT says it is an error to have our own relations. See http://obo-dashboard-test.ontodev.com/bco/fp7.html. We could request those in RO.

Row	IRI	Label	Issue
1	http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BCO_0000058	has role	shares label with http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0000087
2	http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BCO_0000085	to taxon	not an RO property
3	http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BCO_0000086	of organism	not an RO property
4	http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BCO_0000087	member of taxon	not an RO property

[ramonawalls]

Definitely we need to get rid of has role. That was just there because there were conflicts between RO:has role and some other has role, which I think has been fixed.

[bpeters42]

Hi Ramona: Only the definition of properties that have the same labels as an existing RO relation is considered an error. The other reports are intended to be warnings. It is understood that many ontologies will have their own relationships - it is more of a reminder to think about if any of the relations you are coining might be of more general use, and/or to inspect if there are overlapping properties in RO that could serve the same purpose.

[ramonawalls]

I am going to break these out into separate issues for each relation. I will close this issue once has role is deprecated.

[ramonawalls]

See #113 for to taxon and of organism.

member of taxon is okay as is for now.