Create OntologiesReviewWorkflow #2437
Conversation
This is to update outdated information regarding the review process, which is no longer for 'promotion' from library to foundry, but rather for new ontology submissions. This file is intended to be linked from the EWG page.
nataled
added
documentation
docs/OntologiesReviewWorkflow
Outdated
| - what is the workflow for conducting a review? | ||
| - what are the criteria used? | ||
|
|
||
| Ontologies are reviewed manually after completing the automated evaluation. Though the automated evaluation checks for adherence to [OBO Foundry principles](http://www.obofoundry.org/principles/fp-000-summary.html), it cannot capture certain nuances outlined in the principles nor evaluate ontology quality. The purpose of the manual review is to check the ontology for issues that the NOR Dashboard does not cover. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ontologies are reviewed manually after completing the automated evaluation.
I guess "completing" implies "passing" but would it be good to state that explicitly? If the submitted ontology completes the automated evaluation and fails anything, it is not reviewed manually yet, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might also be good to clarify by saying "Newly-submitted ontologies" (even though it does say that in the first sentence).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The purpose of the manual review is to check the ontology for issues that the NOR Dashboard does not cover.
This document doesn't seem to cover what happens after an ontology passes (or fails) the review. I assume that is intentional, but it affects things like my comment below that a passing ontology needs to say yes to (as currently worded) some of the criteria.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, completing was intended to mean passing. Fixed.
Also clarified that this applies to new ontologies as suggested.
I did indeed intentionally leave out what happens upon passing or failing, as this is covered elsewhere and is technically not part of the review process. This doc is intended to stay focused on the review process itself.
|
|
||
| # Steps prior to manual review | ||
|
|
||
| Once an ontology is submitted to the OBO Foundry, it is added to the New Ontology Dashboard for automated evaluation. The steps involved in ontology submission and subsequent dashboard evaluation are described in detail in this [FAQ answer](http://obofoundry.org/faq/how-do-i-register-my-ontology.html) and links therein. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it is added to the New Ontology Dashboard
As a reader, I would be curious how this happens -- is it completely automatic, or does a human have to add it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suspect it is added by a person, but comments to this effect are outside the scope of this document. I only added a very brief synopsis of 'prior' steps because the dashboard is referred to later in the document, and I don't like bringing things up without prior introduction.
docs/OntologiesReviewWorkflow
Outdated
|
|
||
| # Review priority | ||
|
|
||
| All submitted ontologies will be manually reviewed based on the order in which the ontology becomes compliant with the automated evaluation (that is, when the [New Ontology Request (NOR) Dashboard](http://obofoundry.org/obo-nor.github.io/dashboard/index.html) status is set to 'pass'). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"is set to" suggests misleadingly that someone sets it. Maybe say "...status is 'pass'"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see it the same way (as a program can change statuses too) but I changed it anyway.
docs/OntologiesReviewWorkflow
Outdated
|
|
||
| Criteria for review include (but are not limited to): | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Ontology scope - Do the terms fall within the ontology's stated target domain of knowledge? Was the ontology developed for a very specific purpose or community? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was the ontology developed for a very specific purpose or community?
But that's ok, right? That just makes it a domain ontology or whatever we ended up calling it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct, it is okay. The question is evaluated because the answer impacts certain other aspects of the review.
docs/OntologiesReviewWorkflow
Outdated
| Criteria for review include (but are not limited to): | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Ontology scope - Do the terms fall within the ontology's stated target domain of knowledge? Was the ontology developed for a very specific purpose or community? | ||
| 2. Terms with the new ontology prefix - Do the terms follow the OBO identifier scheme? Are there terms with the same <i>meaning</i> available in another OBO Foundry ontology? Is there another OBO Foundry ontology whose scope covers any of the new terms? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For some of these criteria (e.g. the first one here), the answer should be "yes", whereas for others (the second two), the answer should be "no". I know this because of my insider knowledge, but I think it would be better to word all the criteria so that they are criteria for inclusion, and should be answered "yes".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This part was lifted from the SOPs and thus was indeed meant for insiders. However, I agree that in this document the answers would be useful to users. Asking some of these questions in a manner that gives a 'yes' answer would make the wording more difficult to follow, so I opted instead to provide the hoped-for answer.
| 5. Appropriate use of object properties - Are object properties used in a manner consistent with their definitions, domain, and range? (Examples of incorrect usage include those based on some interpretation of the label of the object property but not actually fitting the property definition or domain and range.) | ||
| 6. Responsiveness to suggested changes - Have the developers been willing to fix any identified issues during the review? | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I know this is kind of a sore point, but how about putting some indication of how long it typically takes for these reviews to be completed? (2 months?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd rather not. This information is given in the response to submitters and can vary. It would be bad IMO to say '2 months' if it would be substantially shorter (or longer), or say something like 'we hope to have these done within 2 weeks but it might take longer' because people only remember the numbers, not the caveats.
Addresses concerns raised by Nomi
This is to update outdated information regarding the review process, which is no longer for 'promotion' from library to foundry, but rather for new ontology submissions. This file is intended to be linked from the EWG page.