Principle #16 maintenance - automated validation

[nataled]

From EWG discussion on this:

Maybe automate check of release frequency? Not really a good check.

[beckyjackson]

The versioning check (principle 4) kind of checks this. If there is a valid version IRI with date information, it sees how long ago it was. If it's less than a year old, that's a pass. I can move it to a new principle 13 check, but I don't see a page for 13 on the OBO Foundry site.

[nataled]

My apologies, this note was supposed to be for principle 16 (I accidentally used the numbering as presented in a numbered list; there are no principles assigned to 13-15).

On 10/22/2019 1:51 PM, Becky Jackson wrote:

The versioning check (principle 4) kind of checks this. If there is a valid version IRI with date information, it sees how long ago it was. If it's less than a year old, that's a pass. I can move it to a new principle 13 check, but I don't see a page for 13 on the OBO Foundry site.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/1059?email_source=notifications&email_token=ADJB7CW5RRZXMYIVQWWDWTTQP44SNA5CNFSM4I2C4VG2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEB6T3AI#issuecomment-545078657, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADJB7CVV5272QAH757IIPZ3QP44SNANCNFSM4I2C4VGQ.

[beckyjackson]

Oh whoops, this isn't included in check 4, it is check 16. So this should already be documented in #1020

[nlharris]

Is this ticket redundant with #1020? Can we close this one?

[nataled]

I want to keep this open so it stays on EWG radar.

[cthoyt]

Now that after an incredible amount of curation, effectively all active ontologies have tracker annotations and github handles for their responsible authors. It would be possible to automate for all ontologies to ping the tracker (since all but 4 are Github) and the responsible person directly to see if they're responsive.

Some proxies for ontology activity/unresponsiveness to consider:

1. Last year I sent out an automated request to all ontologies' trackers to add the obofoundry topic to each repo in https://github.com/OBOFoundry/OBOFoundry.github.io/issues/1535. You can see that many still have not done so - this is an obvious mark of unresponsiveness.
2. The OBO Community Health Report uses the GitHub API to identify which responsible people for each ontology are themselves inactive on GitHub (no commits, issue interactions, etc.). See https://cthoyt.com/obo-community-health/contacts and https://github.com/cthoyt/obo-community-health

[nataled]

@cthoyt these are good, but not appropriate for this principle. They apply instead to P20 "Responsiveness"

[nataled]

Issue got a bit off track, closing.