2022-07-19 Release #617
2022-07-19 Release #617
Conversation
|
I can see the OMO term in the ro.owl. Maybe something is wrong with obo conversion? |
|
it seems specific to ro.obo cause ro-base.obo has the axioms so its the specific conversion |
|
I don't see the OMO addition in ro-base.obo |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/blob/master/src/ontology/Makefile#L44
Base wont have any OMO stuff, but ro.obo should. weird.
| @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ property_value: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/description "The OBO Relations O | |||
| property_value: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title "OBO Relations Ontology" xsd:string | |||
| property_value: http://purl.org/dc/terms/license https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ | |||
| property_value: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage " https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/" xsd:anyURI | |||
| property_value: owl:versionInfo "2022-05-23" xsd:string | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I fixed this in the ODK migration.
ironically ro-base.owl has it, but not ro.obo >.< lol |
|
The OMO is in the base because it's inside edit and not via an import, as you said here, @matentzn: #615 (review) The problem is with OBO conversion. |
|
I can create the OMO import and rerun the release. |
|
After meeting with @matentzn, we're aware that OBO format doesn't show the new annotation and consequently the terms that are using the annotation. Please avoid using OBO artefact. |
Is the plan then just to add that in release notes? |
|
also little bit confused about the OMO import - is this just jim not putting the new OMO terms in OMO yet and the import is plans for when it moves over? |
|
I think the OBO artefact has been dropping a lot of stuff from RO anyways - it was always highly incomplete. It should just not be used at all, ideally we remove it, but I am not aware of anyone using it right now. We tried to understand why our specific expand annotation was removed (somehow a large portion of RO is in the owl-axioms header), but gave up. I don't think we need to add this to the release notes - this is not new at all, it was always like this. OMO import is a placeholder for when we do the right thing with ODK. |
|
Can you make a separate issue for me to look at the obo format, and of
course the obo format will not be dropped!
…On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 3:48 AM Nico Matentzoglu ***@***.***> wrote:
I think the OBO artefact has been dropping a lot of stuff from RO anyways
- it was always highly incomplete. It should just not be used at all,
ideally we remove it, but I am not aware of anyone using it right now. We
tried to understand why our specific expand annotation was removed (somehow
a large portion of RO is in the owl-axioms header), but gave up. I don't
think we need to add this to the release notes - this is not new at all, it
was always like this.
OMO import is a placeholder for when we do the right thing with ODK.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#617 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMMOKWWFLVHD4TNM2QMYDVU2BY5ANCNFSM533RHGJQ>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
I made an issue here, but the issue only scratches the surface: #618 There are other things that do not happen to want to be released properly. What is super odd though: that the OMO stuff does not at least appear in the owl-axiom header. That is odd. |
|
It looks like there is a separate issue with OMO that is totally unrelated to obo format - let's fix this first: |
No description provided.