Closed matentzn closed 3 years ago
A simpler proposal:
An ontology is obsolete if the owner declares it as obsolete
We have other flags such as inactive that can be applied in cases of inactivity
We haven't seen the case yet of someone changing to a commercial license. If this were to happen I think we should have another mechanism/flag rather than overloading the concept of obsoletion. We should stick to the dictionary definition of obsolete "no longer in use or no longer useful"
Related tickets: #1126, "Document the distinctions between active/inactive, orphaned, etc.", and #733
Just to be clear, if the obsolete
tag is the problem with this proposal, then lets invent a new tag or use another (inactive or whatever). The point here is that we should have some formal procedure to remove an ontology from the primary library or at least visually distinguish it when it is broken and not being fixed, see for example https://github.com/HUPO-PSI/mzIdentML/issues/117 (the only current such case). I would also like to consider to obsolete GAZ and merge it into wikidata (because of this), but I don't know which groups rely on GAZ atm.
See also: Define intended behavior for obsolete ontologies in ontology browsers #1454
I don't care so much about the name but each kind of status/flag should have defined behavior. I realize we have not done this for obsolete
: made a ticket #1454.
I suggest a tag such as permantly_unavailable
for the xlmod case. The behavior would be:
GAZ is a tricky case. I will follow up on the ticket
Perfect, sounds good to me :) I am happy with permanently_unavailable
!
From the operations commitee meeting:
As there are no open cases, I vote for closing this issue and reviving when a new one comes along. @cmungall managed to establish contact with the xlmod people. Thanks all for the input :)
Currently, I do not see an official strategy on the OBO website that describes under which conditions an ontology, once accepted, can be removed again from the OBO foundry active ontology list, i.e.
obsoleted
. Obviously, the purpose here is not to create a weapon to nuke ontologies we don't like, but to create a way to clear the OBO ontology library of ontologies that have been superseded or that grossly violate the OBO philosophy.First, the definition of
obsolete
: this is simply to mark an ontology asobsolete
in the OBO metadata and list them asobsolete
in the library. Importantly, the ontology, at least IMHO, still retains their ID space, so we don't get any conflicts down the line.I can think of three main reasons for obsoletion:
obsolete
, see #1442 as an example.@pbuttigieg formulated it similarly here:
For 1, inactive and superseded, I would suggest these criteria:
I think both criteria should be true for an obsoletion request to be submitted.
For 2, a significant violation of OBO Foundry principles, I would say develop a list of criteria like
ont.owl
) purl - either unparseable or not there in the first placeI am not sure whether something like "violating OBO principles in general" is a bit too.. extreme.. and causes issues. In the worst case, we can use the code of conduct mitigation team to deal with an issue beyond the hard criteria (1/2) above.
Procedurally I suggest this:
What do you think?