Open jamesaoverton opened 5 years ago
cmungall
commented
5 years ago What is the concrete implementation required for this; e.g. equivalence or skos axioms? Having an open ticket for general discussion OK too. Assigning @deepakunni3 as we have many mappings in biolink model already
jamesaoverton
commented
5 years ago I don't have a concrete plan, or even a complete list of W3C projects that we should to consider. In the past week I've seen these four mentioned in various OBO discussions, and I just wanted them listed together in a ticket.
bpeters42
commented
5 years ago I am very worried about scope creep for the core. Having as scope: 'Let's model all of biology' is pretty bad already. If we also say: let's do that by identifying the best possible resources to do that, I don't think we can ever get anything done. Can we please stick to OBO ontologies, and better yet foundry ontologies that have said they are willing to change for this purpose? We can always expand scope later.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 11:57 AM James A. Overton notifications@github.com wrote:
I don't have a concrete plan, or even a complete list of W3C projects that we should to consider. In the past week I've seen these four mentioned in various OBO discussions, and I just wanted them listed together in a ticket.
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OBOFoundry/Experimental-OBO-Core/issues/15#issuecomment-483800870, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANN9IjuDtaEQCHv2FztCmeIQQaeCTo7Kks5vhh0NgaJpZM4cyQok .
-- Bjoern Peters Professor La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology 9420 Athena Circle La Jolla, CA 92037, USA Tel: 858/752-6914 Fax: 858/752-6987 http://www.liai.org/pages/faculty-peters
cmungall
commented
5 years ago Do we have commitment to change from any ontology yet?
Scope creep is a worry but this ticket is just for exploration and gathering information, not for throwing out existing OBO classes
bpeters42
commented
5 years ago Reviewed OBO foundry member ontologies (not OBO library) have committed to be part of a project of alignment and have committed to change for that purpose. And that has worked quite well in the past: People/projects that were willing to submit their ontologies for review have also been willing to adjust based on feedback from the group during the review and beyond. Far from perfect for sure, but that is the criteria we should enforce for foundry membership going forward: If there is a change request that is universally agreed on to make an ontology interoperate with others, but that ontology can't do it (there might well be valid reasons), then that (version) of the ontology should not be a member of the OBO foundry.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 7:46 PM Chris Mungall notifications@github.com wrote:
Do we have commitment to change from any ontology yet?
Scope creep is a worry but this ticket is just for exploration and gathering information, not for throwing out existing OBO classes
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OBOFoundry/Experimental-OBO-Core/issues/15#issuecomment-483916267, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANN9It3gCSncbuVqCNYx6qUJvwQcwctvks5vhosSgaJpZM4cyQok .
-- Bjoern Peters Professor La Jolla Institute for Allergy and Immunology 9420 Athena Circle La Jolla, CA 92037, USA Tel: 858/752-6914 Fax: 858/752-6987 http://www.liai.org/pages/faculty-peters
OBO Core is an opportunity to build bridges to other ontologies, particularly those connected to the W3C:
I had trouble finding a proper list, although this search was helpful: https://www.w3.org/TR/?tag=data