You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It would be good to provide a description of each subset so that users can better understand their design and purposes. It should be pretty straightforward to do this.
As examples, Uberon, MP, and CL all use rdfs:comment to describe subsets. DO can do the same. If a more official annotation property is created in OMO (information-artifact-ontology/ontology-metadata#80), we can always use that instead.
The use of rdfs:label is less common than using comments to describe the subset, but DO is not the only ontology including a label.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It might be good to establish a common pattern for these descriptions. They generally are either 1) created for a specific project/user or 2) created to include a related set of terms. For some subsets, it might make sense to include both of these elements in the description.
Example patterns:
MP: "Terms in use by {user}"
CL: "a subset of general classes related to {description of cells/cell grouping}"
_Uberon does not use a consistent pattern; it has some comments with labels, acronyms, and descriptions of varying length.
It would be good to provide a description of each subset so that users can better understand their design and purposes. It should be pretty straightforward to do this.
As examples, Uberon, MP, and CL all use
rdfs:comment
to describe subsets. DO can do the same. If a more official annotation property is created in OMO (information-artifact-ontology/ontology-metadata#80), we can always use that instead.The use of rdfs:label is less common than using comments to describe the subset, but DO is not the only ontology including a label.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: