search

GenomicsStandardsConsortium / mixs

Minimum Information about any (X) Sequence” (MIxS) specification
https://w3id.org/mixs
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal
33 stars 20 forks source link

Discuss renaming of Food extensions #779

Closed only1chunts closed 2 months ago

only1chunts commented 3 months ago

Current details There are 4 Food related extensions

  • MIxS-food-animal and animal feed
  • MIxS-food-farm environment
  • MIxS-food-food production facility
  • MIxS-food-human foods

The naming of which attempts to encode a sort of hierarachy, i.e. "MIxS-Food" is the top-level grouping. This is the only place we attempt to do this. Do we want to maintain the elongated names encoding this hierarachy, or would it be more appropriate to rename them removing the word "Food"?

Suggested update(s)

  • MIxS-animal and animal feed
  • MIxS-farm environment
  • MIxS-food production facility
  • MIxS-human foods

Additional context Discussion raised in PR #769

lschriml commented 3 months ago

This was discussed when we created this set of packages. This is the only time where we have had four distinct, yet connect packages. I would want to keep the names as is. Cheers, Lynn

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 5:03 AM Chris Hunter @.***> wrote:

Current details There are 4 Food related extensions

  • MIxS-food-animal and animal feed
  • MIxS-food-farm environment
  • MIxS-food-food production facility
  • MIxS-food-human foods

The naming of which attempts to encode a sort of hierarachy, i.e. "MIxS-Food" is the top-level grouping. This is the only place we attempt to do this. Do we want to maintain the elongated names encoding this hierarachy, or would it be more appropriate to rename them removing the word "Food"?

Suggested update(s)

  • MIxS-animal and animal feed
  • MIxS-farm environment
  • MIxS-food production facility
  • MIxS-human foods

Additional context Discussion raised in PR #769 https://github.com/GenomicsStandardsConsortium/mixs/pull/769

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/GenomicsStandardsConsortium/mixs/issues/779, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABBB4DJOC2YOD6A6EWAOOMDYY75PNAVCNFSM6AAAAABE5D2C4OVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGE4TINBQGA2DMNQ . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

-- Lynn M. Schriml, Ph.D. Associate Professor

Institute for Genome Sciences University of Maryland School of Medicine Department of Epidemiology and Public Health 670 W. Baltimore St., HSFIII, Room 3061 Baltimore, MD 21201 P: 410-706-6776 | F: 410-706-6756 @.***

only1chunts commented 2 months ago

This was discussed at CIG 9Apr2024 call. Consensus was that as long as the definitions are good enough then we can leave the names as is. We need to check the definitions of the extensions are suitable in the SOT. If so, then we can close this ticket as no action required

only1chunts commented 2 months ago

Each extension has a unique description in the SOT that is adequate for defining its use, plus each have use-case examples included in the annotations slot. So I'm closing this ticket now as completed.