Some ontologies adopt this, others don't. Some do it half hearted. E.g. half of CL obsoletions have this and half don't. This kind of random patchwork confuses users.
In contrast OBO ontologies will always include obsolete in the label
This issue is to gather feedback from different ontologies about what their preferred policy is for this. Ideally we can achieve consensus and have a single KGCL workflow for all ontologies. I think this is best for users, as well as for maintenance. If not, then we can make this configurable.
My own preference is to keep things simple. "obsolete" in the label is sufficient. The definition is not necessarily obsolete. But the GO editors may have reasons to keep this.
When GO obsoletes a term the string OBSOLETE is added to the definition:
https://wiki.geneontology.org/Ontology_meeting_2024-04-08#Obsoletion
Some ontologies adopt this, others don't. Some do it half hearted. E.g. half of CL obsoletions have this and half don't. This kind of random patchwork confuses users.
In contrast OBO ontologies will always include obsolete in the label
This issue is to gather feedback from different ontologies about what their preferred policy is for this. Ideally we can achieve consensus and have a single KGCL workflow for all ontologies. I think this is best for users, as well as for maintenance. If not, then we can make this configurable.
My own preference is to keep things simple. "obsolete" in the label is sufficient. The definition is not necessarily obsolete. But the GO editors may have reasons to keep this.