Closed cthoyt closed 2 years ago
Yes I agree with this. Every ontology should have a repo. Sometimes, this differs from the issue tracker, for example, if groups keep projects in separate repos but want issues in a specific community facing repo. What needs doing to achieve this? Which ontologies currently in OBO do not have a repository?
Only the following three non-obsolete, non-orphaned, non-inactive repositories are missing a repository
annotation:
Prefix | Contact | |
---|---|---|
fma | Onard Mejino | mejino@u.washington.edu |
mamo | Nicolas G | xxx@gmail.com |
ogg | Yongqun Oliver He | yongqunh@med.umich.edu |
https://bitbucket.org/hegroup/ogg
could be used as a repository for OGG.Given that effectively all ontologies already have this field, I think that this is a pretty sure-fire thing to promote to required.
I proposed a fix for these three ontologies as well as an accompanying update to the schema in #1741. Merge on that should wait on people having a chance to comment on this, but I think it's pretty uncontroversial so maybe give it until the end of the week.
I think we are good with MAMO and OGG as you suggest.
Do we need to discuss this on a call?
Yes
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 24, 2022, at 7:16 PM, Nomi Harris @.***> wrote:
Do we need to discuss this on a call?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Currently, only an issue tracker is required. I think it makes sense to also require new ontologies to provide a repository (e.g., on GitHub (highly preferred), GitLab, BitBucket, etc.)
Implicitly, this will encourage all new ontologies to use a public repository as their main place for curation.
This was motivated by the recent new ontology request for ELO (#1729), which did not include a repository. It seems to be the case that a potential submitter is not aware this is important, because it is not included in the form.