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
DendroPy cannot load a phylogeny with duplicate taxon labels, which means that phylo2owl.py can't, either. Fixing this will mean moving away from our previous model of naming leaf nodes from the taxon name (e.g. "pg_2357:Alobevania_gattiae") to using the same Node-number scheme we use for internal nodes (e.g. "pg_2357:Node_134"), and then providing them with either an rdfs:label or making them explicit instances of cdao:TU and figuring out the best name of assigning taxonomic names to those.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think that's a good thing to do anyway. Abusing labels for identifiers is fine for getting a proof of concept started, but is still an abuse. So I agree let's start to think more thoroughly about what the model for describing OTUs should look like.
DendroPy cannot load a phylogeny with duplicate taxon labels, which means that phylo2owl.py can't, either. Fixing this will mean moving away from our previous model of naming leaf nodes from the taxon name (e.g. "
pg_2357:Alobevania_gattiae
") to using the same Node-number scheme we use for internal nodes (e.g. "pg_2357:Node_134
"), and then providing them with either anrdfs:label
or making them explicit instances ofcdao:TU
and figuring out the best name of assigning taxonomic names to those.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: