Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Create a "mapping change" report to add to the release #7230

Closed
sabrinatoro opened this issue Feb 2, 2024 · 8 comments
Closed

Create a "mapping change" report to add to the release #7230

sabrinatoro opened this issue Feb 2, 2024 · 8 comments
Assignees
Labels
tech issue requiring work from the technical team

Comments

@sabrinatoro
Copy link
Collaborator

Technical call on Feb 02, 2024

Some users might use Mondo for the mappings, therefore it would be good to create a report about changes in mappings, and share it with the Mondo release

Need to examine what tool to do this, KGCL, OAK, sparql query, etc.

@linikujp
Copy link

linikujp commented Feb 9, 2024

Hi, I support this request. With my group, we mainly use MONDO to find out the mappings. While we receive the updates about terms for each release, we will need to have a separate pipeline to check the mapping changes associated with those terms, or even new mappings, deprecated mappings that are not associated with changed terms for each release. It will be great if MOMDO can provide the mapping changes along with each release.

@twhetzel
Copy link
Collaborator

Discussing with Nico and Harshad and this can be added into the existing diff pipelines.

@twhetzel
Copy link
Collaborator

Work towards this is being incorporated in INCATools/ontology-access-kit#605

@sabrinatoro sabrinatoro moved this from Backlog to In progress in 2024-05 Mondo Release Apr 3, 2024
@twhetzel twhetzel moved this from In progress to Up Next in 2024-05 Mondo Release May 2, 2024
@twhetzel twhetzel moved this from Up Next to Backlog in 2024-05 Mondo Release May 3, 2024
@twhetzel
Copy link
Collaborator

twhetzel commented May 3, 2024

The work in OAK is not sufficient for an xref diff so we will make a plan to create this report.

@twhetzel
Copy link
Collaborator

twhetzel commented Jun 4, 2024

The first step to addressing this is INCATools/ontology-access-kit#775

Update: There are some issues with the PR and asked Harshad to sort out to finalize this.

@matentzn
Copy link
Member

matentzn commented Jun 26, 2024

Next steps:

  1. Add kgcl report goals to mondo.Makefile.

Here is the

HPO makefile snippet

##################
### KGCL Diff ####
##################

KGCL_ONTOLOGY=hp-base.obo

prepare_release: kgcl-diff

.PHONY: kgcl-diff
kgcl-diff: kgcl-diff-release-base

.PHONY: kgcl-diff-release-base
kgcl-diff-release-base: reports/difference_release_base.yaml \
						reports/difference_release_base.tsv \
						reports/difference_release_base.md

tmp/hp-released.obo:
	wget http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/hp.obo -O tmp/hp-released.obo

reports/difference_release_base.md: tmp/hp-released.obo $(KGCL_ONTOLOGY)
	runoak -i simpleobo:tmp/hp-released.obo diff -X simpleobo:$(KGCL_ONTOLOGY) -o $@ --output-type md

reports/difference_release_base.tsv: tmp/hp-released.obo $(KGCL_ONTOLOGY)
	runoak -i simpleobo:tmp/hp-released.obo diff -X simpleobo:$(KGCL_ONTOLOGY) \
	-o $@ --output-type csv --statistics --group-by-property oio:hasOBONamespace

reports/difference_release_base.txt: tmp/hp-released.obo $(KGCL_ONTOLOGY)
	runoak -i simpleobo:tmp/hp-released.obo diff -X simpleobo:$(KGCL_ONTOLOGY) -o $@ --output-type kgcl

reports/difference_release_base.yaml: tmp/hp-released.obo $(KGCL_ONTOLOGY)
	runoak -i simpleobo:tmp/hp-released.obo diff -X simpleobo:$(KGCL_ONTOLOGY) -o $@ --output-type yaml
  1. Release OAK (probably done already)
  1. Release ODK minor
  • Status: 1.5.2 released the week of 23-Jul-2024
  1. Amend SOP for creating Mondo release notes to use the OAK diff (reports/difference_release_base.md) instead of the other MD diff we have right now

@twhetzel
Copy link
Collaborator

@matentzn is this PR still needed related to this overall issue? Can you close the PR or make it active for review as needed? Thanks!

@matentzn
Copy link
Member

@matentzn is #7266 still needed related to this overall issue? Can you close the PR or make it active for review as needed? Thanks!

Nope, I closed it! Thanks!

@twhetzel twhetzel added the tech issue requiring work from the technical team label Jul 23, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
tech issue requiring work from the technical team
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants