search

OBOFoundry / Operations-Committee-RETIRED

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/obo-foundry-operations-committee
1 stars 0 forks source link

How to credit an external group for ontology development #166

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 6 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
If an external group submitted new term requests and provided textual 
definitions and other information needed to define a term, how to give the 
credit to the group?

For example, ENCODE group submitted some assay terms by filling out OBI assay 
template with term label, synonyms, definition, definition source, device used, 
input and output of the assay, etc. Current in OBI, the person who submitted 
the term is listed as a term editor and the ENCODE group is credited by using 
annotation 'dc:source' with value 'ENCODE project'. Is it the way that OBO 
Foundry community recommend? If not, what is the better to credit the external 
group who submits the NTRs?

Original issue reported on code.google.com by zhengj2...@gmail.com on 6 Jan 2015 at 5:57

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
definition source

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 6 Jan 2015 at 6:02

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
[deleted comment]
GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
couldn't hurt to add an editor note if you want to say more.

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 6 Jan 2015 at 6:46

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Discussed with Alan. If just for crediting an external group, we can use 
definition source and/or term editor (editor note can be used for details) 
based on the contribution of the external group.

Another purpose that I use dc:source is for recording which group/project 
request the terms. Since the dc:source is quite vague, Alan suggest to add a 
new annotationProperty in IAO, 'term requester'. He also proposed a related 
annotationProperty, 'tracker item'. I think both annotations make sense and are 
very useful. I will add them in the IAO if no objection.

Original comment by zhengj2...@gmail.com on 15 Jan 2015 at 7:00

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I agree that both of these are useful.

Original comment by rlwalls2...@gmail.com on 15 Jan 2015 at 7:39

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
dc:source is also a little vague.  Perhaps we can be a little more specific and 
avoid ambiguity by using something like "definition source"

Original comment by rscheuer...@jcvi.org on 15 Jan 2015 at 11:29

jamesaoverton commented 6 years ago

IAO now provides 'ontology term requester' http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000234