-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
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
unify annotations #2093
Comments
Plan:
|
This is more than perfect, great work @anitacaron |
omg that is such a great table! thanks! |
|
@anitacaron thats great, I will run this by @cmungall and see whether we want to maintain them all. If so, we will write documentation on when and why to add these. |
This is great, thanks. These are in two categories
For 1 I have no string opinions. Keep UBPROP, move to UBERON namespace, move specific terms to OMO, use generic OMO terms with some kind of qualifier [e.g. "note about topic X" OMO pattern]. You all decide! 2 is more interesting. These axioms aren't doing much work at the moment but I wager they will be crucial for comparative use cases. We know that representing these more directly in OWL doesn't work (https://douroucouli.wordpress.com/2021/03/24/avoid-mixing-parthood-with-cardinality-constraints/). They are certainly not appropriate for OMO. I would favor keeping them in the ontology for now. I don't have strong opinions on whether we keep UBPROP for these, move to UBERON namespace, make RO shortcuts, put these in PATO, or have an entirely different approach for this kind of thing (e.g. lightweight w3id URIs). |
From the above, we suggest removing the following as they are not really being used: The following need to be checked by @matentzn and we will remove if they are not useful:
@shawntanzk will check what the following are: Tickets will be made for other things |
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002173 (ambiguous for taxon) is logically silent but says "it's quite likely we would want to place a taxon constrain here but can't for a number of reasons". I suppose these could be replaced by issues. But I like making this transparent. |
Add documentations on how each of the ontologies handle things like created by and xrefs (I've been noticing that there each one handles it differently and it's sometimes not consistent within ontology)
Related to: pato-ontology/pato#278
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: